Beckett, Nikita, and the guys of Hawaii 5-0 - picture that walking down the beach. Good Lord, the hotness!
If it existed - yes. The point being that there is no way a political vetting of a candidate misses something as straightforward as a first marriage for 15 years, and to a guy with a criminal record to boot. No. Way. Just like the idea that an FBI background check for the Attorney General missed it, but Ryan and Esposito had no problem pulling up the whole thing and the guy's background makes no sense. This is why I hope the new showrunners have a short little scene where Beckett and Castle find out that the "first marriage" was faked and planted piece of information. Because it's so ridiculous for it to be anything else but.
I don't exactly follow what you're referring to in the second paragraph. Is it errors from S5 onward? If you're talking about the meeting Beckett had, I do think that Beckett's first marriage has to be a lie. That's the only way the storyline will ever make sense. From Beckett's point of view, she has always stayed on the side of justice and what was right - putting herself on the line to do so. As for it being Beckett's decision - she brought the issue to Rick and asked what he thought - he's the one who tells her the choice is hers. That scene was very different from Watershed. It also doesn't mean they haven't talked about children... there's a section on the swing scene in this that talks about how different it is from Watershed. http://gossipandgab.com/73219/...
I agree about the errors since season 5. However, I think they did their research on the serial killer thing. The murderer letting him go on the face of it seems odd, but the kid didn't see his face, so it's not like he could be identified. This guy was very specific it his killings. So killing the kid wasn't the same kind of thrill thing as what he did. The girl he did kill for this case - Emma - she had I.D.'d him. So he had to kill her - plus as a woman she fit his profile more than a kid. It's not like an assassin, or a general criminal who's willing to kill. The logic of serial killers tends to be warped and their killings are planned, not spontaneous. Check out this piece on serial killer profiles - letting the kid go isn't as unlikely as it sounds. http://www.adherents.com/misc/...
That date may not be accurate, but if you look at the actor playing the kid he looks 11 - not 14. Plus, Castle states he was 11 at the time. Have to go with the canon in the script - mistake or not. It also still works that killing the kid would have was more likely to cause someone to start investigating. The killer's whole thing was about finding victims that no one would look for.
It's in a couple of the Wiki's - based on this: http://dustjackets.wikifoundry...It's an in-house Twitter for Castle - not a parody. However, the person doing it may not have checked the date with MilMar. I doubt Nathan would have the character be older than his actual age, and he was born in 1971.
Serial killers aren't exactly sane, but they can be very smart. This guy had a particular type of killing he liked to do. What Castle said about his murder drawing attention fits. Why kill the kid and draw attention to his murders when he can just scare the kid, dispose of the woman's body, and be free to kill again Who's going to believe a kid when there's no evidence anyway. No one was looking for the woman - but looking for a missing 11 year old boy they'd be all over the place and possibly find his trophy place in the process. If Castle had been a man it's have been different, but people look for missing kids for years.
Oh, but that marriage doesn't really exist. I mean the only time it turned up was in that ridiculous season 6 finale. The attorney general background check didn't find it. These guys did a complete political vetting of her but didn't find it either. Being married to an ex-con - for 15 years no less - is not something that would be missed. The simplest explanation is that Beckett's recollection of it not being legal is correct and Rick's kidnappers planted the phony document in order to separate him and Kate so that it'd be easier to kidnap him. :D
Which should she choose? Neither. Both of those jobs involve political maneuvering, which isn't her favorite. The senator would mess up the balance of the show. However, I think the police captain is worse because she doesn't get to do any real policing - she has to keep track of all the cases, assigns stuff and check people's work. She'd be miserable. It would make more sense to put her on a high profile task force investigating political corruption. I think they put in the senator thing in case the show was canceled. I could see her doing that later in life because she once wanted to be lawyer. She'd like being able to write laws that empower people and advocate for families impacted by major crimes. However, that's as an endgame move for the the show - not during it. As for what I'd like in season 8 - in no way should they separate Rick and Kate on cases. Those are the worse episodes - especially when they pair Castle with Alexis. I would like another Ryan-centric episode as well. Somehow those are always good and doesn't isolate the rest of the cast. More private Caskett moments! They are so prudish with this couple and you wouldn't have thought they'd be like that from when the show started. Also, a big yes to more Martha! She's great with both Castle and with Beckett. She adds a great dynamic to the show and provides an outlet for both characters to talk through things. Definitely more Martha. What I don't want is that silly Castle disappearance story brought up again. It's obvious that it was never really thought out and was basically just a wedding stall idea. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. I hope they've let it go. I'm also not ready for a Caskett baby, but it would be good for them to discuss it more concretely, like talking about the ways they would have to change the way they do things now. For instance: I like the idea of Castle staying home with the baby...which is why I'm not ready for them to have one yet. :) I see why they had to wrap up the serial killer story the way they did, but the problem really is that the serial killer story from Castle's childhood is what they should have gone with in the season six finale. They could have the discovery of the body occur near the wedding reception. (And had the wedding happen then.) Then for season 7 they would have had a mythology involving Rick that people cared about. Oh well. Moving on. I'm happy for a season 8 and looking forward to seeing what the new showrunners do!
I disagree about The Voice. Yes, they have yet to have any breakout pop radio stars, but Cassadee Pope's album went to number 1 on the country charts, and has a platinum single, Danielle Bradbery is also doing well in country her album was a top 20 hit, she's signed to Taylor Swift's label, and she's still not old enough to drink, Josh Kaufman just finished up in the Tony-awarding musical Pippin. Runner ups and top six winners are also still working on an uphill climb. I'm sure it's similar for other Idol winners also. They may not become stars, but they are able to become working vocal artists - as opposed to working in Starbucks to pay the bills while working on their craft. Of course, Idol is the show that by it's title promises stardom. The Voice is about finding talent. The real point of these reality shows though is entertainment, and the Voice is consistently that. The judges have good chemistry, the talent competing is generally good, and the coaching sessions are interesting. On The Voice what comes across is that everyone involved really cares about music and as a music lover it's great to watch. Idol on the other hand, has always been about star-making, and it stopped being fun to watch a long time ago.
© 2015 TV Fanatic
TV Fanatic Plus
© 2015 TV Fanatic