Castle Boss Previews 'Beautiful' Wedding (Take 2!), Answers Burning Qs About Rick's Vanishing and More

Castle Wedding Spoilers

Save the date — Monday, Nov. 10. That’s when ABC’s Castle is truly heading for a wedding, after Kate and Rick’s original nuptials got derailed by the groom’s mysterious vanishing. That said, the crimesolvers’ trip to the altar won’t be without one final detour, as Rick finds himself in a reality where he and Kate never met!

TVLine invited showrunner David Amann to preview this latest pre-wedding twist, tease their ersatz honeymoon and also field burning questions that still surround Rick’s disappearing act and accompanying memory loss.

TVLINE | At the time you decided to derail the season-ending wedding, did you know when it would actually take place?
We knew that it was going to happen within the first half-dozen episodes. We didn’t know exactly which one, but we knew it would happen relatively soon.

TVLINE | So you never bandied about the idea, “Let’s make them wait for the Season 7 finale”?
No, we felt like that would be a little punitive to our audience. This is something they and we, quite frankly, wanted for the show, so we didn’t want to delay it too much longer.

TVLINE | Was the trick then finding a unique way to frame it within an episode?
That’s exactly right. We had toyed with versions of an alternate reality kind of story, and this one we felt was a really good vehicle to give Castle (played by Nathan Fillion) perspective on his life had he not met Beckett (Stana Katic). It serves as a way of driving them towards closure in their relationship.

TVLINE | So in this “reality,” the past six or so years have passed, just without him in their lives?
Exactly. So he’s never written Nikki Heat, because he never met [Kate]. And she has no idea who he is. Also, the people around him — Martha, Alexis — are different as well, in different kinds of ways, in direction reaction to the path that his life has taken. So there’s a lot of fun to be had in the episode. Nathan, I think, is brilliant at playing the “fish out of water” situation, which he does a lot of in this episode. It’s a delightful show.

TVLINE | And are our friends at the 12th different, as well?
The differences are a bit more subtle, but yes, they’re definitely different. Clearly [Ryan and Esposito] don’t know Castle from Adam in this story, so they both view him with varying degrees of suspicion.

TVLINE | One concern I heard viewers had as the Season 6 finale played out was that if there had been a wedding, it would have only been, like, 45 seconds tacked onto the end of the episode. I imagine they have that same concern with “Time of Our Lives.” Will the wedding element total more than 45 seconds?
I don’t know what the length of the actual wedding is, but I will say that having seen it, it is a really beautiful moment for the two characters, and for the series itself. I think it’s going to meet — or hopefully exceed — the expectations of the folks watching the show.

TVLINE | Because you covered a lot of the elements already last season — the preparation, assorted dresses, shopping for a venue. Now it’s just about actually exchanging vows.STANA KATIC, NATHAN FILLION

TVLINE | Was it always your plan to have some sort of a honeymoon venue factor into the subsequent episode (airing Nov. 17)?
It was something that kind of came out naturally, because they’re investigating a case that is goes back to this dude ranch. They were going to have to go undercover, in this case under the pretense that they are newlyweds, even though they are newlyweds. But they’re not there to go on their honeymoon, they’re there to solve a murder. But that doesn’t mean that some fun can’t be had along the way.

TVLINE | Will they have squeezed in an actual honeymoon between Episodes 6 and 7?
They will not have had one; that’s an issue that we’ll be addressing at the top of Episode 7.

TVLINE | Did I hear or read that there are Firefly nods to be found in the Old West episode?
I think it is possible…..

TVLINE | The mystery of Castle’s vanishing/memory loss: Will that be revisited at all by midseason?
We’ll probably brush up against it in at least one episode that follows [Episode 10], and then well revisit around the [Episode] 14/15 area.

TVLINE | Which I felt would always be the plan. That’s how the Johanna Beckett mythology was parsed out, and the Jackson Hunt episodes. You’d hit it, let it fall by the way side for a stretch, Castle Vanishing Mysterythen have it pop up again. I saw some people expecting it to be solved in the first two episodes and I’m like, “Not gonna happen.”
No, Beckett’s mother’s murder persisted over basically five seasons — six, really — until it was resolved. We’re certainly not anticipating that here, but it will lie fallow until such time that it kind of asserts itself within the series, and then Castle has to deal with it again. It’s the kind of thing that, like the mythology of Beckett’s mother’s murder, will come and go. The shadow of her mother’s death didn’t hang over Beckett every episode, just the ones where we dealt with it directly. This will be the same way. It’s been put back in the box, but the box will open up again, and Castle will have to figure out what his next move is.

TVLINE | There was a pre-season interview where Nathan at least suggested it wouldn’t be as  dark as the Johanna Beckett mystery.
I think that’s probably true, yeah.

TVLINE | Was the “Hollander’s Woods” thing a clue to what Rick blocked out, or was that just some sort of “passcode” that Not Henry Jenkins was using?
That was just about being able to prove in that moment that Castle had said something to him, that there was a confidence shared between them. That particular biographical detail about Castle was proof of that.

TVLINE | So the larger mystery is not about something he witnessed in the woods as a kid.
No, not at all.

TVLINE | Lastly, is there a reason why Rick had to be grabbed in the Hamptons, on his wedding day? Even one of the cops, I think, brought this up — why not just grab him in the city?
There is a reason, yes, and it has to do with the timing of what was going on. We’ll probably explore that a bit more fully when we get back into that storytelling later in the season.

Want more scoop on Castle, or for any other show? Email and your question may be answered via Matt’s Inside Line.

Comments are monitored, so don’t go off topic, don’t frakkin’ curse and don’t bore us with how much your coworker’s sister-in-law makes per hour. Talk smart about TV!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. tam says:

    Thanks for the interview Matt!
    I’m soo nervous for the next ep but excited too. I can’t wait!
    Also looking forward to ep 7. Looks like a great fun one!
    Interesting comment on the password story, I hope we get to hear abt it when Castle finally tells Beckett, hopefully by midseason. Wondering if this mythology will end then or continue further.

    • shirley says:

      I juist don’t want the writer’s to “jerk us around again”.
      I would have loved a Hamptons wedding but seems that what ever kind of wedding they give us, just please do! Castle already asked Beckett several week ago to let get married and she said in one month, so I guess this is the one month wedding.
      Hope they don’t decide to do it in the last thirty seconds. Would be so unfair to us.

  2. leigh says:

    Sounds exciting! can’t wait for next week.

  3. Brigid says:

    It all sounds good to me. I can’t wait to see the Firefly nods, one of my very favorite shows and movie!!!

  4. Kourt says:

    I am so excited for the next two episodes. 706 and 707 should be amazing episodes. I think the new mythology will pop up every now and then kinda like the Johanna Beckett murder before Beckett solved the case.

  5. LDS says:

    “And she has no idea who he is.”

    Except Beckett was a huge fan of Castle’s books before they met, so what’s up with that?

    • tam says:

      It’s AU, she probably never read his books just like how they never met.

    • Badpenny says:

      One of the problems with most long-running shows is that the current writers do not pay a lot of attention to character bibles and the things which happen in earlier seasons – you see this often in many shows. Throw in a new showrunner and continuity gets even murkier.

      • Katherine215 says:

        David Amann is new to his role, but not new to the show though. I think it’s just a continuity error, or she knows OF him but doesn’t know him personally. And it’s an AU, so maybe in that universe, she wasn’t a fan of his books. Too much unknown right now to judge fully, imo.

      • Long before Amann was appointed showrunner, the series abandoned continuity. And, truly, the majority of their viewers don’t seem to notice that stuff, which is why they get away with it.

        • S. says:

          Not true. The show hasn’t abandoned continuity. You regularly slam them for things they didn’t do wrong, so maybe look to thine self for the error.

    • Mary says:

      That question has a very simple answer – like some people above said, it´s an AU, so in that reality she IS NOT a fan of his work!

      • ndixit says:

        The problem with that answer is that the description of the AU is that its a world where the Castle and Beckett never met. So what happened after that moment is completely different. But their lives before that moment should still be the same, which means that Beckett should still be a fan or at least should have been a fan 6 years ago.

        • lkh says:

          she read the books to help deal with her Mom’s murder. I agree, wouldn’t she still have read Derek Storm? Guess she would know of Castle even if she didn’t know him.

        • KCC says:

          The question is: what changes so they never meet? My guess is Beckett never heard of Castle nor read any of his books. It would have been a minor change in her life. She could have read Patterson or King to get through her mother’s death, it didn’t have to be Castle. It would be a good joke in the show if Beckett is a big fan of Patterson in the AU. The catalyst for Beckett searching Castle out in the first murder in season 1/episode 1 is it was staged like a murder in one of his book. If she never read it she wouldn’t have made the connection to him and searched him out so they never meet.

    • Dani says:

      That’s what I thought… in the first episode of the series, she recognized the crime scenes as scenarios from Castle’s book and she even had a collection of his books.

    • c-mo says:

      It’s pretty obvious from the sneak peeks that in the AU she’s never read his books, when she’s interrogating him, she “reminds” him that he worked with another detective on the case where they met in Castle-verse.

    • Brigitte says:

      I’m a Stephen King fan. Doesnt mean I know him.

    • S. says:

      It’s an alternate universe. I think it stands to reason that other things besides their never having met are different. Is it really that hard to follow that? Obviously it’s not sci-fi so it’s not really an alternate universe. He’s imagining her never knowing who he is, and to my knowledge he doesn’t know she read his books to get through her mom’s death. She talked about that to another guy and she basically did a ‘don’t you dare say anything.’ She didn’t want to look like a fangirl. Obviously when he got to know her later, he learned about her interest in fangirl-y things, Nebula-9, watching soaps, etc. He figured out she was a fan of his from some stuff she knew and her being on his fan site. I still don’t think he knows about just how important those books were to her.

  6. Anon says:

    Why wasn’t there any Castle yesterday?

  7. a says:

    I see he dodged the question about the length of the actual wedding scene, which just confirms that it’s going to be nothing more than an afterthought.

    • Katherine215 says:

      People looking for 20 minutes of the wedding are doomed to disappointment. This is a procedural, not a soap opera.

      • Kathryn says:

        Exactly. Anyone who thought we’d get an entire episode with nothing but the wedding is kidding themselves. Never going to happen.

      • M3rc Nate says:

        Lol first off…this borderline is a soap…this show has had the main characters defuse a Nuke in the middle of NYC by ripping out the wiring, they have stopped a domino from falling that would have caused WW3…they have taken down a guy running for President that was a murderer and huge criminal mastermind, the main characters father (Castle’s) is a secret CIA agent or w/e….come on, dont try to act like this show is some down to earth show.

        Fact is what this show is really based on, what its heart is, is Castle and Beckett, so the idea that them getting MARRIED…the biggest moment, the second most waited for moment (first being them admitting feelings and getting together) of the entire series, their wedding/marriage..being a few minutes long? Not smart. Fact is considering this shows core/heart (Castle-Beckett), it wouldnt be hard to imagine the show dedicating a entire episode to the wedding, or at least half. What is the show about if not huge moments in our main characters lives? Only because its forced be a police procedural do they not veer and tell more character driven stories.
        (Specifically i mean the lead on “Numbers” has said in an interview in the past that while filming the show he heard CBS specifically say they cant not have a murder and investigation in every single episode. No episodes to explore characters full without a “murder case”. So i imagine thats a common rule on all of the procedural cop dramas)

        Now im not personally arguing for 20 minutes, but 5+ is what will satisfy me. I dont want it skimmed over in 2 minutes…let the moment bubble, let it get us emotional. Dont just show them running to a court, saying i do, kissing then the episode ends or something.

        Overall what shows need to take strongly into account is what their fans are really wanting to see. What are the fans of their show really huge fans of? In this case i would say most Castle fans are huge fans of the characters, specifically the love story of Castle and Beckett, so if thats the #1 reason they watch and love the show, why wouldnt you take your time showing one of the biggest moments of the series (in regards to the two lead characters)?

        • Jake says:

          Agree 1000% – if only Marlowe and company felt this way.

          • AnnieC says:

            Agree, why can’t Marlowe/Amman and company see the relationships as the strength of the show.

          • KCC says:

            I think the producers are very well aware of the characters and the relationships that make the show popular. After all they have much more invested in them than any fan does. It’s their creation and livelihood. Thinking the producers are oblivious to what fans want or do things just to anger the fans is just not true IMO. Different fans watch the program for different reasons. You seem to think all fans are of the same mind and want what you want. That’s not the case. There are 4 people responding positively to M3rc Nate’s comment regarding this topic (counting M3rd Nate). Out of 10,000,000 viewers. Networks do all kinds of market research and focus groups to gauge what people would like to see. Whether or not that’s a good thing is up for debate.
            I just wanted to comment because I get tired of reading comments that the producers are oblivious to, or uncaring about the fans and I wanted to give a different opinion. I think it’s more trying to keep one fanbase happy is bound to upset a different fanbase. It’s a difficult balancing act. Having said all that, you are entitled to you opinion and please keep commenting on the TVLine articles.

          • S. says:

            KCC, preach. So beyond presumptuous to tell someone you know their characters better than they or their actors do. People are seriously thinking Marlowe, etc. aren’t as invested in the relationships? I think they’re MORE invested than we are. The characters are theirs. The know where things are going. Just because you don’t doesn’t mean what they’re doing is wrong. They know the arc. Patience, grasshopper. Making out in every episode doesn’t equate to the way a relationship’s supposed to go in order to be great and emotionally truthful. Castle’s under an obligation to be true to the reality they’ve established, not OUR reality. Things that are likely to happen in that world don’t have to be likely to happen in this one completely. If you saw dinosaurs walking around in Jurassic Park, well you’d buy it because they sold it narratively, and in that world the science makes sense, but if King Kong suddenly showed up on that island, you’d go “this is totally unbelievable!” Yes, in a dinosaur movie you got distracted by something unbelievable. Getting mad when the show tries to be grounded is ridiculous. It’s a combination of broader stuff and the more realistic–every crazy case has a believable situation that it arose out of, so it’s not as crazy as Castle’s theories make it seem at the start. They pretty much have a rule that it has to be possible/plausible. Even the zombie episode fit that description. There was a perfectly legit reason for that Santa to fall out of the sky in the one Christmas ep.

        • T says:

          I completely agree with both arguments that many fans do take exception with how Castle and Beckett have been depicted while at the same time Marlowe and company do/should know their characters and are more invested (financially) in their story than anyone. As a fan of the show I have heard Marlowe say that they know their bread and butter is the relationship between Castle and Beckett. However, the show has always been written as a complex game of Clue, with various visual and verbal hints dropped to foreshadow the unfolding story. Once fans get pulled into this game it can become extremely frustrating when the game writers don’t follow their own rules and the new story is not consistent with the story from the past. Some fans don’t care because they just enjoy the episode in front of them. Others have been roped into the game and place a higher expectation on the storytellers to be consistent with what has been presented before. Think of the final third of season 5. Shortly after Castle’s screw up with Kate’s Valentine’s Day earrings she suddenly started wearing a gold bracelet on her left wrist. No mention of where it came from. Was it Castle’s replacement gift? Symbolism: gold, round, left wrist – engagement ring. Voilà: engagement ring at the end and we have not seen the bracelet since. Kevin Ryan’s backstory as being undercover with the Irish mob in the Wild Rover was great. Out of the blue – yes – but completely consistent with his comments earlier about working with drug enforcement. These details built on past details. Kate’s out of the blue Vegas wedding (unless you read it into her conversation with Alexis about being in the love haze or in Castle’s question to Kate “…do you have any other relatives I need to know about…”) and Castle’s missing two months came from nowhere. That is why this fan has been disappointed lately. I really liked the seasons 1-4 story of Castle and Beckett drifting to each other. The seasons 5-now story of how their relationship matures has not been as good. Marlowe definitely deserves credit for creating the characters and show. However, how many times have brilliant entrepreneurs created new products and new companies only to learn the hard way that they are not capable of running the company as it matures? Maybe Marlowe is better at the creation of the characters than at their maturity. At least for some fans.

        • shirley says:

          Amen to all you said. Could not have put it better.


    • Fran says:

      Or maybe he doesn’t want to give anything away? I don’t see that he was dodging the question at all.

  8. Astrid says:

    Can’t wait!

  9. BetiSA says:

    interesting answers, great questions.

  10. Very good interview thank you Matt.

  11. I have heard through the Twitter grapevine the wedding will be about nine minutes to close out 7×06. As for Firefly references, can we just let this show go? It was a sub-far SciFi show that aired a handful of episodes over 10 years ago and then had a failed movie. It grows tiresome.

    • Badpenny says:

      And yet without it Nathan Fillion would probably still be ‘guy #4 in the back row’ or maybe an English teacher in Canada. Nathan has commented on that several times, himself.
      Once Star Trek was considered nothing but a campy failed SciFi series. Dr. Who was off the air for 16 years between TV incarnations. Long story short, one man’s flop is another man’s success.

      • lkh says:

        Heard him interview once on KPCS (2 hr interview, very nice). He worked on that soap for a few years(3 years?) in New York then decided on Hollywood where he couldn’t find work for over a year. Think he is grateful about Firefly. I liked that show too and it has sustained his popularity. People(fans) like it to be mentioned in the show, everyone associated with Castle is quite aware of that. I think they touch on shows that the rest of the cast have been in also. I’m not sure folks consider it a ‘flop’–it was just prematurely cancelled. Sorta like all of a sudden there was no Veronica Mars. Mistakes by the tv movers and shakers. Is that like one man’s ceiling is another man’s floor? :)

    • sigh says:

      You said exactly what I was going to say! Like every other episode has to have some Firefly reference… How many nods can a show that didn’t last an entire season get? I hope someday NF will star in a new TV series so we can get tons of Castle nods…..

      Anyway, thanks Matt for the interview!

    • At some point the “inside” jokes get old. Especially when a series pushing 150 episodes is making them about a(n admittedly popular) series that lasted 10.
      The question is, how have they managed to maken so many in seven years?

    • shirley says:

      I will be happy to have a nine min. wedding. You bet!!

  12. Sebastian says:

    We’re seriously getting an alternate universe episode? That sucks. Castle should stay away from the fantasy stuff, they don’t handle it very well. Like the recent invisibility suit episode. They decided to try and “explain” it, but they skipped the fact that she could see, when invisible, even though that was the only thing that really needed explaining.

  13. Flick says:

    So so excited! Thanks Matt! I have a feeling the wedding will be perfect!

  14. Demi says:

    Thanks for the interview Matt! Don’t mind a 3 minute wedding ceremony so far they are as true to the characters as Meredith on Grey’s Anatomy.

  15. T says:

    Castle used to be an intelligent (mostly) series that showed the development of two interesting, but flawed, characters as they drifted together. This “new mythology” and the 6×23 events that launched it is ridiculous in how it has been crafted and presented. The whole premise under which Castle resumes his normal life, a time based selective memory wipe, is only possible with Men in Black and their flashy blinky thing. So unlike the Joanna Beckett story, which was based on things that could happen in the real world, the Castle kidnapping story is based on MIB fantasy. I have not seen anything in season 7, and don’t expect to see anything in 7×06, that has made me understand why the characters just move on because the premise of Castle’s memory wipe (not to mention camping out in a tent for two months and all of the other nonsense that goes with it) is not believable. However, I will give credit to David Amann for being more forthright in his answers than Andrew Marlowe has ever been. I would like to believe that it was not his idea to pursue the Castle kidnapping story like this but that he has to pick up the mess and fix it. No doubt a completely false premise but it leaves me the hope that season 7 will restore Castle as a series that follows intelligent characters (now married) through new and interesting stories. The next two episodes look good. Too bad Matt did not ask about the missed Beckett marriage background checks. I would have had tremendous respect for Amann if he had simply answered “Writers are human: we make mistakes”.

    • lkh says:

      I’ve felt like the biggest difference between Beckett’s mom murder and Castle’s disappearance was timing. Her mom was murdered-what-13 years ago. Castle’s disappearance is right now. Ignoring an old case, even though it haunted her is understandable, ignoring someone not showing up for a wedding, who you thought either burned up or got squished, then you thought had free will and did it intentionally, then went to Canada and found tapes, has Dengue fever antibodies, was found floating in a dinghy in the ocean and remembers none of it–do these two life changing events (Mom’s death v his disappearance) seem like they should be handled the same way? or should I say ‘not handled’ the same way.

      • Great point. It really doesn’t make sense to establish this big new mystery, about the main character no less, only to tease it like the Beckett mythos.
        I won’t get into the fact that was one was decidedly more “organic” than the other. They seem to know where the story is going, but it’s not been executed well enough for people to ask the right questions. (That Matt had to ask about Castle’s childhood only highlights the murky storytelling – which wasn’t helped by Marlowe’s red herring tweet about it.)
        It should be noted that Beckett’s story got increasingly convoluted and fantastic as the series went on, making it more and more difficult to “buy.” But they’re no different than Greys or SVU in that regard, so I’ll let it go.

        • lkh says:

          …and to establish it so precipitously (pun intended) for a main character that was so out of character. Not to mention that I think he’ll be having his ‘goof’ on for the rest of the season/series. Must have been part of a new contract deal. ugh, I just got mean….sorry.

    • DarkDefender says:

      There are numerous drugs that have an amnesia side effect. It is not far fetched (and is actually quite plausible) for that to happen. As for the “2 months camping thing”.. I am certain that was all staged by NHJ to protect Castle’s wish to not remember.. And so that no one would think he’d been anywhere else.. Which our fine detectives only figured out because Castle would not have picked that campsite (fear of Tsunamis) and the RHJ actually showed up at the trailer the day Castle and Beckett went out there.

      • T says:

        There is no real world way to wipe human memory entirely from one specific time to another. That is only possible with computers. Certainly memories can be made vague through a variety of techniques but time specific erasure on demand – no. The rest of the story – evidence of camping out in a tent; Castle’s “irrational fear of tsunamis”; complete disappearance for two months but the coincidence of a tourist snapping his picture in front of a bank – just very poor storytelling to me. Did Beckett ask for video evidence from within the Montreal Bank to see Castle or ask for street camera video – no. The tsunami fear excuse – come on, his house in the Hamptons sure looks like it is on the ocean beach and it is certainly not on the highest ground (and his favorite part of the house; “…the sound of the ocean…”). On the other hand, his tent looks like it is on a lake in a state park. Beckett’s blanket acceptance of Castle admitting that he went back to Montreal by himself without even challenging him was completely out of character. Recall her comment to him at the end of Hunt when he returned home from going to France by himself (…”Please don’t do anything like that again without me.” His answer: “I won’t.”). When on the phone with Castle in Veritas she reminded him that she did not go after Jason Marks alone because she was being responsible, in response to Castle’s admonishment that she went out and took pictures against their agreement to work together. So the set up and premise for this Castle disappearance has just been very poorly done for me. I like the idea of finding out more about him (and the Hollander Woods hint does seem to be consistent with hints of Castle’s history) but I don’t like what feels like a poorly executed story that will probably lead to meeting Derrick Storm, or his human inspiration, just in time to launch a new Derrick Storm TV show.

        • lkh says:

          Agree. And the fact that she or the guys doubted/questioned him even a little, much less than I would have, has made many fans angry with her and others from the team. I dunno, in a way, if I was in his situation, I might want a little more focus/interest in what happened, a little more analyses, more push. Have a hard time moving on from this so, what seems to me, easily.

        • DarkDefender says:

          We can agree to disagree and I’ll admit some of the story telling has been lazy.. But I can take an Ambien before bed and forget the last 3 chapters I read of a book I am very interested in. So I believe memory can be manipulated by drugs. Also we have no idea if his mind was “wiped” incrementally or all at once.
          Aside from the fact that this is fiction and it becomes less enjoyable if you pick apart all the stuff you need to suspend your disbelief of.. I say.. Just enjoy the story without ruining it with your own logic. Castle is primarily a light hearted fun show played for laughs.. Don’t take the mishaps in the drama so seriously.

          • lkh says:

            Maybe the funs lies in exploring and following the story–that may be fun for some of us. Don’t know if ‘pick apart’ is what is happening. Clearly we all continue to enjoy the show. People know it’s fictional–I think–but my caution is that sometimes people ‘believe’ what they hear and see on these shows. I believe in caution there. I’ve always been based in science and logic–it’s does not lead me to disliking something, or wanting to ‘suspend my disbelief’–( btw, what does that mean?). And I take none of it seriously, except for those times folks might actually believe, take for truth, what they hear on these shows.

            Regarding ambien–not prescribing here–but if it is associated with loss of memory (unless the book sucks)–it’s probably not a long term amnesia. If it is, and even if it’s short term, you might want to think about lunesta. :) (not a doc, don’t listen to me)

          • T says:

            I agree with you that drugs can affect memory. However, there is no way for me to walk into a doctor’s office and ask to have my memory wiped from the time I saw an SUV next to me on the road two months ago and the time when I wake up from whatever it is the doctor does to me. That is total fiction. You are right that there is nothing to be gained when picking apart the plot holes, usually. I am completely onboard to suspend all of my disbelief and have fun with the story when the story plays within the boundaries of the seriousness of the story they are trying to tell. I really liked “Always” but I am absolutely sure that Kate could not catch herself on the edge of a building and then hang there by three fingers. I liked the scarecrow scene in 7×03 but it would have taken hours for Castle to hang the pots and where was his ladder? But so what? Those scenes just added dramatic support to the end of the episode. This memory wipe story has absolutely no carry on information to understand how it could be done but believing it is crucial to enjoying all of the story implications since then. It is also supposed to be a serious plot point upon which the remainder of the story depends. It is not one meant to be light hearted. If this was the Men in Black movie then it would work fine for me. However, this detail is beyond my rules for suspension of disbelief for a serious storyline in Castle. The writers could have/should have made this detail more believable.

        • To the point about the Hampton cottage being on the water, Beckett asked him about it as a comparison to the tent being on the water; and he replied that the cottage was on the land side, not the water side.

          • T says:

            I agree that he said that. My objection was that as the house was shown in Murder He Wrote (5×04) and again in For Better or Worse (6×23) it sure looked like the house was on the ocean. He did say that his favorite part of the house was “the sound of the ocean”; not exactly the kind of comment someone with an irrational fear of tsunamis might say. There was one other reference to his house quite a while ago, the end of season 2 I believe, when he was trying to get Beckett to go to it with him. I can’t remember his description of it then. This level of minutia does not really matter much. It is just that some of us are cursed with memories like Beckett’s desk elephants for trivial details.

          • DarkDefender says:

            Rick actually said the house was on the “inland” side.. Meaning on the peninsula facing the inlet and not facing the the ocean.. But I suspect one can hear some waves as well.. Just from the back of the house… Across a ton of land.. It’s Just not direct ocean front.

      • lkh says:

        Certainly there is drug induced amnesia–don’t know about ‘lots’ of drugs. Also, there is the fugue state (dissociative fugue) that can have a similar effect.

        • Kim says:

          I’m an ICU nurse. We give patients various drugs while on the ventilator that sedate them in a way that makes them forget. It’s totally plausible. One in particular, profolol has a short half life and is out of the system very fast so it sedates quickly and effectively but leaves the system quickly once turned off as well. If monitored properly, this would effectively wipe his memory—but he couldn’t walk around and make money drops in dumpsters and visits to banks while on it. There would have to be a different drug for that. 😄.

          • T says:

            It is obvious that Castle knew exactly what was going on when he made the video for Kate. He also looked coherent in the money dump video and the picture standing in front of the bank. I am sure that they will invent some plausible sounding way to wipe his memory. But it will be an invention. That is in direct contrast to what could be the story of the Hollander Woods. It is certainly possible that whatever happened to him as an 11 year old scared him so much that he internalized it by burying it deeply in his memory, only to have it foster his fascination with why people do what they do. I am not invested in the disappearance story but the Hollander Woods story could be good. Too bad it is tainted by this new story.

          • lkh says:

            yes, those types of drugs are used in that circumstance–but agree, probably not long term effects.

  16. sigh says:

    I hate to say it, but I had to look up “ersatz.”

  17. ndixit says:

    My worry for episode 6 is that they will show Beckett’s impact on Castle’s life even in places where there shouldn’t be that much impact. For example, I really hope they don’t make it out that Castle is unsuccessful in the AU because he never met Beckett. He may never write Nikki Heat, but he was a successful author before he met her, and presumably he would have been a successful author even if he hadn’t met her. Also, the promo pics show a distinctly different looking Alexis. So I hope they don’t do something like having Castle be a neglectful father because he didn’t meet Beckett because that would be stupid. He was a good father before he met Beckett as well. I think the main impact Beckett has had on Castle is in his attitude towards love and romance. Before he was a bit of a playboy, and now he isn’t. I would assume that in the AU where he didn’t meet Beckett, he may have gotten married and divorced 1 more time.

    • TacoB says:

      I hope they devote some precious time to show Castle’s impact on Beckett’s life

    • LL624 says:

      Remember that in the pilot, Castle had killed off Derek Storm and had writer’s block. He didn’t know what to write next. So if he never got the inspiration for Nikki Heat, it’s possible that he never wrote again. Also, he’s gone to Kate for advice on Alexis several times over the years so AU Alexis is the result of not having her input.

      • lkh says:

        I’ve said it before–Castle likes language, puzzles, games and challenges. He doesn’t write books but he does create the crossword puzzles for the NY Times :]

        On the other hand, Alexis is probably still a pain in the … ah, neck.

      • ndixit says:

        It was writers block. He has had writers block even during the series and presumably he’s had it before. I’m pretty sure all writers go through that. But he’s shown to be a talented writer, independent of Beckett, so he should be able to get over writers block and be successful regardless of Beckett, especially since he already has been successful without her. Its like saying Beckett would never have been able to catch another criminal had she never met Castle. And I don’t remember any significant advice Castle has gotten from Beckett about Alexis. Certainly nothing that should change his entire parenting attitude since he’s always shown to be a very sensitive father, independent of Beckett.

      • DarkDefender says:

        Castle killed off Derek Storm and was then offered to write 3 James Bond books.. Which he only derailed because Nikki Heat took off and he’d write a dozen more for the money they were offering. In the AU I think he is well aware of Beckett.. Hence him knowing all of them and them not knowing him. Therefore it seems logical that the impact they will show (purpose of the episode) is for Rick to try to win her back over AND he will come to realize that he has been letting her “drive the train” and make most of the decisions in the relationship (to not scare her off) and he will now decide he needs to put his foot down and tell her his feelings, that he does not want to wait any longer to be married to her becuase she is the love of his life and he had zero doubts about them.

    • I don’t think they can get away with suggesting he wasn’t successful in the AU, because he would’ve found his mojo somewhere. However, while Castle was a really good dad and Alexis did NOT have to raise herself, I could see their paths veering had Castle not found something worthwhile – which really has more to do with crime-solving than just Beckett. Whether he washed out or had a ghost writer tackle his next big series (lol, meta re: real life), if he didn’t find something fulfilling, he may have gotten complacent.
      It was hit home early on what effect Castle had on Beckett. Montgomery, Lanie and everyone else said it in the beginning. Now we’ll just see exactly what they were talking about with an older, jaded Beckett. It’s unlikely she ever saw closure or justice for her mother, and it’s unlikely that she has a life outside work.

      • ndixit says:

        See, I don’t like the suggestion that Beckett is the only worthwhile thing in Castle’s life. He had a plenty fulfilling life before Beckett and he should have a reasonably fulfilling life without her as well. I can see his love life maybe being a disaster and there could be subtle differences in his relationships. I just hope they don’t make the suggestion that Beckett heavily influenced every aspect of his life because his dynamic with his family has remained fairly unchanged over the years. And I don’t think its fair to suggest that he would wash out without inspiration from Beckett since he found plenty of inspiration for Derek Storm independent of Beckett so there’s no reason he wouldn’t find inspiration again. I guess the issue is the changes to Castle’s character over the year is much more subtle than changes to Beckett. Therefore the impact of her character on him should also result in subtle changes and not major dynamic changes. I mean I don’t mind if maybe Castle shifted to a different genre in writing or that Alexis changes her hair and dress style by herself in the AU, I just don’t want it to be something stupid like Castle never rediscovering his penchant for writing because he never met Beckett, or that he became a neglectful father towards Alexis because he never met Beckett because that really wouldn’t make much sense.

        • lkh says:

          and, not that we ever so much of Beckett’s private life, she did have one also–at least it’s been hinted at frequently. So, I don’t think he was the only worthwhile thing in her life either.

        • KCC says:

          I think you’re underestimating the impact Castle working with the police has on his family. His dynamic with his family as been consistent over the years because we witnessed the dynamic develop with him having met Beckett. That’s the only dynamic we’ve seen. There have been a lot of scenes of both Alexis and Martha worrying about his safety following Beckett around. That angst might never have existed otherwise. Also, without his infatuation of Beckett there’s no telling who he might have developed a relationship(s) with that might have had a negative/different influence on Alexis. As for Castle’s finding other inspiration, you never know. Every artist at some point loses popularly. Either because they get bored and try something different (like Castle and Derek Storm) and the fans reject the changes or the artist doesn’t change and the fans get bored with the same old, same old. Artists disappear from the public conciseness all the time. That’s when, 5 years down the road, someone says: “Whatever happened to Castle? I really enjoyed his Derek Storm novels. That new character sucks. I wish he stuck with Storm.” Nikki Heat was probably popular because of Castle’s enthusiasm for the character aka Beckett. Would any other character he created been as good or popular? I think that’s what Castle is going to learn. We don’t know and that’s the fun of the alternate reality.

          • ndixit says:

            My point is that Castle is shown to be a very talented author, independent of Beckett. His passion for writing is not linked to Beckett. So, maybe he doesn’t get inspiration to write Nikki Heat, but I think it would be a bit insulting to the character if they make it seem a complete washout because he never met Beckett. Maybe he could have gone a different direction with his writing, but a guy with such a wild imagination and passion as Castle, is the sort of person who would never run out of things to write about. It would be like making Beckett a complete failure as a detective because she never met Castle. That would be a gross injustice to her character. As for his dynamic with his family, I think we have learnt sufficient background about how his family dynamics were before the start of the series to determine that their relationships haven’t changed that much. Castle has gone through two divorces, helped his mother through ups and downs of her life, but he has remained a very devoted father and son. I don’t see what circumstances could change that. Like I said, I don’t mind subtle changes, but I thinks it would really stupid if they try and pretend that Beckett’s impact on Castle would radically change how he behaves with his family.

          • KCC says:

            ndixit: I understand your point and respect it. My point is, even the most talented of writers in real life go though periods of not producing anything at all or work that is not popular with the public. It would not be insulting to the character that he would have a period of 5 or 6 years when he didn’t write anything or produced work that was less popular than Derek Storm. It’s just the cycle of an artist’s work and popular culture. It seems a little far fetched that everything Castle writes is going to be popular. He’s supposed to be good, but I don’t know he’s that good. For this episode to work we have to accept that Castle was at a crossroads in his career and life in general and Beckett took him down one road and without Beckett he might have chosen a road that was less fulfilling.
            I agree about his family, which is why I think there would have to be someone else in the picture to disrupted the family dynamic. Someone that wouldn’t there if Beckett was around. Kind of like Pi throwing a spanner in the works when he showed up.

          • ndixit says:

            KCC: 6 Years is a heck of a long time for Castle to not find his mojo. I can get him being stuck for a few years, but 6 years is too long for him to be shown as washed out. I know the episode is about how Castle’s life is affected by Beckett and a dramatic affect is the way they want to emphasize the point, but it also goes against what the show has shown us so far. Castle really hasn’t changed all that much. His attitude towards his writing and family hasn’t changed. Where it has changed is in his attitude towards love. He’s gone from being a playboy to being a committed engaged man. That’s where the impact is. I can assume that he might be a playboy in the AU and that might impact his family life somewhat. But I don’t like the idea that Castle is washed out for 6 years because he didn’t meet Beckett while Beckett has actually been promoted to Captain. It makes him seem a bit pathetic.

        • I specifically said I think he would’ve found his mojo somewhere, and that the “worthwhile” aspect has more to do with crime-solving than Beckett. Him washing out from a Derek Storm-related depression is just one possibility.
          If you rewatch the first seasons of Castle and look at things with an extreme lens, Kate Beckett was a miserable workaholic with no life and Rick Castle was a childish womanizer with no scruples. There’s certainly more to those earlier incarnations of both characters, and they both got more depth soon after the pilot, no doubt.
          But the softening of Beckett’s edges and the sharpening of Castle’s eye for justice only happened when they met and spent 1000s of hours together. Sure, Beckett could’ve discovered her more fun side with someone else and maybe Castle could’ve found something more meaningful in life through another muse, but if we buy into the relationship as it’s been presented to us, then that means that we have to accept that they’re it for each other, their fates intricately intertwined and all that.

  18. Dj says:

    How can Beckett not know who Castle is. Even if they never met she should know who he was because she was a huge fan of his books.

    • DarkDefender says:

      In our universe, until she had to interview him for the case in “Flowers for Your Grave” she probably only “met” him at a book sigining (if that). “Knowing of” a famous writer and knowing a famous writer are two different things. I’ve read all Charlaine Harris’ books, but that doesn’t mean if she walked into my precinct I’d “know” who she is… Beckett ends up the Captain of the 12th too.. So she was a focused detective who probably didn’t have as much fun as our KBecks had in her career with Castle tagging along.

  19. Fran says:

    Thank you for the interview Matt! I think the next few episodes sound great. Some things have me wondering but I’ll wait and actually see the episodes before judging. Some people will never be happy no matter what they do though.

  20. Fran says:

    Oh… And I noticed that you have “Fiends” instead of “Friends” in your question about the guys at the 12th…. Or was that intentional ;). It gave me a laugh.

  21. Kate says:

    Thanks for a great interview! I’m very excited for the next couple of episodes. I’ve been a big fan since the beginning, and I really can’t believe they’re actually getting married!

  22. G says:

    The issue of her reading his books is being looked at upside down. Yes it happened before they met. But it’s also WHY they met. The reason she recognized the crime scenes was because she knew the books. If she never read them, that explains why they never met – she wouldn’t know to contact him so they never met.

    Also, if the AU is all in Castle’s mind, he wouldn’t know the depth of her investment in his books. So he’d be thinking she just didn’t read them and that’s why they never met.

    • Fran says:

      Yep, that makes perfect sense :)

    • ndixit says:

      There’s still a problem with that explanation. Beckett only realized that the crime scene was a replica from the books because she was assigned the case. From the sneak peek of the ep, it seems that in the AU that someone else was assigned the case and worked with Castle. That’s the reason why they never met. Not reading Castle’s books would be an AU device from even further back in the characters’ histories then what has so far been implied.

  23. zagsfan says:

    The wedding is a romantic “moment? ” Now I’m really worried.

  24. Matthew b Lawler says:

    Well this certainly sounds like a fun episode it makes no sense that they will have back and not even knowing who castle is as a writer considering in the pilot episode she was a Derrick storm fan which was the character that was featured in castles books before him at Beckett and was inspired to create Nikki heat

  25. Matthew Weber says:

    I honestly don’t care how long the actual ceremony lasts, as long as it’s good, and real (which TVLine says it is). If it meets those three criteria, I’m a happy camper. I love the fun Castle episodes, but I also love where they take the relationship a step further. So this episode should be a win win for me. Can not wait. Like seriously.

    • KCC says:

      I agree completely. It’s not the quantity but the quality of the time spent on the wedding. I’d much rather see 5 well written minutes than 20 poorly written minutes. Honestly, 20 minutes is way too long even if it’s well written. Exchanging vows only takes 2 minutes tops. More than that is bound to get schmaltzy, but I’ll give them 5 minutes for the build up to the vows.

  26. lame says:

    Once Marlowe yanked the rug from under everybody on 6.23, you knew the second time around would be something close to an elopement, I’m sure they’ll hit all the right buttons, romantic, sentimental and it’ll be done on the cheep. But wouldn’t the fans have loved to see a tipsy Aunt Theresa carrying on with a tipsy Martha, or well lubricated Connelly and Lahaine attempting to vette Kate for their poker games, those would’ve made for the joyus culminating celebrations and a thank you to the fans for loyally following the six year arch of Caskett. I guess that was asking to much.

  27. dave says:

    Well I for one am very disappointed that I’m not getting the wedding I’ve been waiting for for the past 6 and one half years! There I said it.. Yes.. that I’VE been waiting for! I have a lot invested in this show both monetarily and emotionally.. the fact that AWM pulled the rug out from under ALL of us I think shows the lack of respect he has for all of us that have been following this series since the beginning and ALL of us should be thoroughly upset by it! Now all I’m going to get is a mere 9 to 10 minute wedding (if that) upsets me to no end! I suppose its going be like Kiras wedding in A Rose Forever After and Lanie will catch the bouquet then she will look at Espo and smile and they all will look at Lanie and Espo and smile and that’ll be the end of it.. shame on you AWM.. very disappointing indeed!

    • KCC says:

      I’ve been a fan since the first show and I’m not upset at all. I did not see or hear any promises of a big wedding episode. I’ve never watched any TV show that had more the 10 minutes of a wedding ceremony, excluding hi-jinx played for comic or dramatic reasons before a wedding. Maybe you want the wedding to stretch out over an entire season. They could show 1 hour of the wedding day per episode. Like “24” only all about the wedding. That would be fun, watching them sleep for 8 hours the night before the wedding. Then eating breakfast and maybe going for a run. Kate getting her makeup and hair done, now that would be an hour of unforgettable TV!
      The most important part of any wedding, whether real life or TV fantasy is the exchanging of the vows. That’s where the real emotion is and it’s only 2 minutes of the ceremony.
      I’m sorry you invested so much money (DVD boxed sets I’m guessing) but that’s what you get buying a work in progress. You should have waited until you knew the ending. I would hope you got some enjoyment out of the 150 or so hours of viewing Castle you had before this utter betrayal by the producers of not crafting their show to your exacting specifications. Shame on them for making you like the show for 6 years.

      • Colleen says:

        I agree 100% with you KCC. I’m not upset either…I am so looking forward to this episode and all the rest to come. :)

      • dave says:

        I was going to answer this with a long winded reply but why bother.. you’re not a true fan of the show.. You’re one of those fans who are willing to settle for whatever you can get and your not worth the time or effort.

        • dave says:

          this was meant for KCC

          • KCC says:

            So I cannot be a “true” fan because I have a different opinion than you? Enjoying what’s presented is not settling. If I didn’t like the show I wouldn’t watch it, I wouldn’t read articles about it and I wouldn’t comment on it. I could argue, if you don’t like what’s being presented then you’re not really a fan of the actual show being produced, you’re a fan of a version of a show you would like to see. You’re right, why bother. We have different opinions, let’s leave it at that.

    • ndixit says:

      What is the appeal of having a wedding that is longer than that? I mean what is so fascinating about watching a wedding ceremony. If there is anything I have learnt from Castle, it is that Nathan and Stana can convey love and affection in a matter of seconds. I don’t need them to spend half an episode on the marriage because it just gets incredibly sappy and corny after a while. A 9-10 minute scene gives more than sufficient time for the wedding to be sweet and romantic without stretching it to unbearable limits.

      • Matt Webb Mitovich says:

        Lordy, 9 to 10 minutes is an eternity in an hour-long TV episode. No one is getting a 10-minute wedding sequence.

        • lkh says:

          almost 25% of the episode.

          • ndixit says:

            Exactly. 9 Minutes is a heck of a lot of time. I don’t know what the complaining is about. Has there been any wedding in a drama that takes up more than that amount of time?

        • Not to invoke the dreaded B-word in a C-word thread, but how long was Bones’ wedding? I stopped watching by then, but the day-of lead-up seemed to be the main event of the entire episode, crime and all.
          But that could’ve just felt that way because of all the promo pics.

  28. Kat says:

    Wait…since he never met her and encouraged her to go after her mom’s case again, does that mean that Montgomery is still alive?!

  29. dave says:

    KCC as I stated before you’re not worth the effort!

  30. Rich Abey says:

    I have no worries about the ‘honeymoon’ episode which looks a fun ride, but I am worried about the alternate-reality episode and whether it will blend in well with a wedding. It’s quite similar to the worries I had before the 100th episode special in Season 5 (which then turned out fantastic).
    I’m eager to see how the writers deal with how different Kate’s life is without Castle…a tricky road though given the many factors in play: from how she managed to get over her dark times without the relief of Castle’s books to whether she got to solve her mother’s murder & is Cp. Montgomery still alive? Afterall he died because Kate managed to do a lot of digging into the case which she probably wouldn’t have done if not for Castle’s poking.

  31. Janice W says:

    Is it true that Stana and Nathan are expecting this show to come to an end soon and they are asking for 1 million dollar per episode? I do think they deserve a great pay for their talents, but I do hope they are wrong in wanting the show to come to an end. They are sitting on a gold mine with “Castle”! So many stories to tell and moving on they can create another show like “Hart to Hart” or “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” They could title it “Mr and Mrs Castle” or “Castle and Beckett”. They could also just continue with Castle. I really want to see them marry and have a little Castle family. They have wonderful chemistry together! I also really enjoy the rest of the cast.! I do love this show!!!!

    • Rich Abey says:

      1 million dollars per episode? This is the very first I am hearing of this. It might be quite a far fetched rumor though given that Stana for all her stellar, captivating work over the past 6 yrs still earns, as far as I know, somewhere in the range of $50-60K per episode (and I am enraged especially when those idiots at Two and a Half Men earn over $600K for doing absolutely nothing!) & Nathan earns around $100-120K.

      • DarkDefender says:

        Nathan and Stana should get pay on par with Patrick Dempsey and Ellen Pompeo from Grey’s. Anything less would kinda be an insult. I hope it all works out. I’d hate for this to be the final season.

        • lame says:

 broke that story of Nathan and Stana joining to negotiate for a max contract for the eight and final season, The one problem is that Castle the series is hemorrhaging viewers at an alarming rate. According to Neilsen rating service, the series has lost 4 mil viewers per episode thus far this season and they continue to drop. ABC may see it beneficial not pay msx contracts and simply pull the plug after season 7.