CliqueClack TV
Twitter Facebook RSS

Castle needs to have weekly poker games

What did you think of Castle? Let us know in our poll!

Nathan Fillion

Did you catch the premiere of Castle last night? Deb and I caught it and what appears to be the third episode of the series, titled “Nanny McDead.” She posted her reaction to the show already, and mine’s not much different: this show has hit potential. A lot of people are comparing it to Bones, and I can totally see where that’s coming from. However, the show is very different enough that any Bones haters should be giving it a try. And what Bones lovers wouldn’t like Castle if it’s got a hint of a premise they already enjoy?

I lost interest in Bones early on, though I hear from many people that it’s gotten a lot better. Castle has a premise that I like a lot more on paper than Bones, and I’ve been more a fan of Fillion’s work than Boreanaz. What set me over the edge with Bones was the hokey technology used by the science team which, again, I’m told isn’t as prevalent in the show these days. Unlike with Bones, so far Castle relies heavily on the male and female leads, not giving as much time and attention to Beckett’s fellow officers, though there’s a lot of Castle’s personal life thrown in that give him more dimensions than just sexist author.

From the first episode, the thing that told me that I’d like this show was a scene so short yet so effective: Castle’s standing poker game with James Patterson and Steven J. Cannell. It was an excellent way to show the viewers that Castle is considered a successful author to the likes of these two guys, and the banter amongst them was something I’m sure made any fan of either author squee in delight. Unfortunately, there’s no poker game in episode three, though I have to imagine we’ll see more later, and possibly (hopefully!) with other notable authors like Stephen King.

What did you think? Is it so-far low on your viewing schedule, a guarantee watch or are you already done with it and not bothering?

What did you think of Castle?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
Photo Credit: ABC

Short URL:

Categories: | Castle | Clack | Episode Reviews | Features | General | OMG/WTF?! Episodes | Polls | TV Shows |

12 Responses to “Castle needs to have weekly poker games”

March 10, 2009 at 5:54 PM

Count me as a mix of the first two options. The first episode of the series didn’t knock my socks off, but I was hooked by the concept and Fillion from second one.

I actually thought the poker game was kinda hokey. Not the concept of it, but the dialog. They spent too long explaining who they were (and thus why the scene should have been cool) to live up to it. Hopefully, in the future, they won’t have to tell everyone who THEIR main characters are so that some of us can Wiki them to figure out who they were (Ok, I got James Paterson, but Cannell I had to look up… Sue me :) ).

March 10, 2009 at 5:58 PM

The scene was originally scripted to include King, Patterson, and Sue Grafton. Read into that what you will based on who actually appeared.

March 11, 2009 at 1:05 AM

I think I’ve read interviews with King where he spoke none too highly of Patterson’s writing abilities (I couldn’t agree more). Thus it may have been a difficulty getting them to be amiable enough to do a scene together.

March 10, 2009 at 9:48 PM

I’ll watch. I wouldn’t say LOVED it, but really enjoyed it.

Patricia Cornwell could really use the publicity of a poker night and Karin Slaughter killed off one of her beloved characters in her last book.

I just love the idea that they are promoting reading. Is there any other place that does? I love to read, so I hope it does really well. Help the authors!

Plus, Fillion is hot.

March 10, 2009 at 9:48 PM

I loved the poker game and Susan Sullivan. The rest of it? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Hopefully the second ep is better.

March 11, 2009 at 1:01 AM

I enjoyed the show, and I’ll stay tuned for more. I actually thought that perhaps Richard Castle was supposed to be some sort of fictional analogue for Stephen King. They referred to Castle as the “master of macabre” which is a phrase often used to describe King. Plus the name. Richard Castle. The relationship between the word castle and king just about smacks you in the face.

March 11, 2009 at 1:36 AM

The show didn’t do much for me. I didn’t think the pilot episode’s premise was that original-the whole killer copies crime author thing has been overdone. I’m not sure I like the female lead, I don’t buy their chemistry. Castle’s whole family and their dynamic seemed heavy-handed and forced. There were some funny lines, but overall it was just one big meh.

I’m going to give it one more try because I really like Nathan Fillion. He does cocky a-holes with a heart of gold so well.

March 11, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Yeah, I thought Katic was miscast as well, but looking at the previews for upcoming episodes, I think they’ve slowly started to tweak the character, which is a good idea IMHO.

March 11, 2009 at 4:40 AM

It got a better start than Dollhouse and we are all sticking with that one.

I think this is a ton better than “Drive” or “Cane” and I’m really interested in seeing more. I think it’s even better than “Daybreak” and when it comes to proceduals, a lot better than “Raines” or “Kidnapped”.

I know I’m listing cancelled shows but I guess that’s what Nathan Fillion’s standard is nowadays. This was at least as funny as “Nailing your wife”, but not as brilliant as “Dr. Horrible”.

What I did like was that a lot of money and hard work has gone into this. There were very few (if any) CGI shots (I didn’t notice any) and a lot of old fashioned camera work. The steadycam work when they entered the supposed-killer fanboy appartment was very well done, a lot of cross cuts showed they were willing to go the extra mile to make this scene look good. For that alone and for the interesting dynamic between Castle and his coplady-fan I’ll be back next week.

Interesting by the way that you dropped “Bones” for the same reasons I did. I made it up to the CGI-rendering of the dead african-american woman in the lab and turned the show off then. Same reason why I dropped CSI Miami after Season Five. The technology was just too hokey (aka pulled out of a writer’s a**) and that’s why I liked “Castle” when they told him it’ll take a week for the prints to get analyzed. I really really enjoyed that.

March 11, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Well, you guys are missing out on a good show. The chemistry between the leads on that show is as good as anything I’ve seen on TV since Moonlighting.

March 11, 2009 at 11:02 AM

I think I basically agree with posts already listed, particularly WW.

I think it’s cute, but not as good as other procedurals regarding writing & cast chemistry i.e. NCIS, The Mentalist, Bones & Leverage. While I want to support NF, I feel Castle is one of those shows on the periphery which could sway people against the procedural. For instance, when Lost & 24 aired, everyone jumped on the sequential bandwagon. However, certain shows, like the Taye Diggs one, had promise but weren’t as good as the early ones (which signaled the death of that trend).

I feel the same way about Castle. It’s cute, but I’d rather see something stronger, not just another entry into procedure-drama. Plus, while I liked Castle’s daughter, I felt the mother was a watered down version of Jessica Walter’s 90210 lush and Lesley Ann Warren’s aged MILF on ‘In Plain Sight.’ It’s great they’re showing sexual middle-aged women, but, the character seems limp & borrowed from other trends. And I don’t feel this character fit the actress as well as her snooty ‘Dharma’ days.

May 17, 2009 at 12:40 AM

I actually really like the show despite its resemblance to Bones.
The characters are great and the tension is definitely there.
The science isn’t dead on but its quite accurate.
I really will be disappointed if the show gets canceled, even if it does use similar scenes to Bones. (eg. dancing scene, moves and all)