Charlie Sheen

[BloodyMage]

Originally Posted by Marc v1.0

I don't see the second statement being mutually exclusive with the first. Sheen's character seemed to provide all the friction and motion to the plot.

Well, while Sheen is central to show, it's Chuck Lorre's show and so long as he writes and it draws ratings, CBS won't care how Sheen's character is replaced or removed.

I'm not saying that it's going to be a hit without him (I'm not sure how it was a hit with him), but it's definitely getting another season without Sheen.

[Magus]

It's kind of like how "8 Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter" whose basis was a cranky father harassing his daughter's boyfriend continued despite the fact that John Ritter died like halfway through the second season and so there was no longer any reason to watch it. And yet people did for some reason.

It's kind of like how they will continue making "*()&*& My Dad says" for five seasons after Bill Shatner dies. They'd just change the title to "&^%*^ My MOM says" That's how accepting the general populace is of ridiculousness, I guess.

So "Two and a Half Men" will just be referred to as "Men" for the rest of its short run, like it already is.

Full Disclosure: I never watch(ed) any of these three sitcoms, BTW, I think the last "sitcom" I watched every day was "Curb Your Enthusiasm" until I saw pretty much 90% of the episodes.

[Bells]

well, Two and a Half Men was not a bad Show... it was surely Formulaic and character progression was as slowly paced as it gets (and sometimes it went one step forward and two back) but it had decent jokes every now and then. But yeah, 90% of the show's Charm was watching Charlie being completely removed from common reality with his ultra-party life style

[Magus]

What "character progression" was there, though? It seemed the same every week. Kind of the point of sitcoms, the characters stay the same but they are put into different situations.

By the way, did Charlie Sheen's antics actually affect his ability to act on the show or did CBS fire him because of the negative publicity? 'Cause if there is anybody I kind of just about expect negative publicity out of it is Charlie Sheen, it's his "thing". They probably shouldn't have hired him in the first place for their "family-oriented" sitcom (does anyone else find it confusing that CBS is the network known for being the most worried about the "image" they project as far as morality and so on and yet have the most violent/sexually scandalous shows? FOX for instance seemed to actually move away from their heady Married with Children days into safer waters in conjunction with their conservative moralism stance via FOX News [Family Guy not withstanding], whereas CBS's shows have gotten more and more sexually provocative. Take for instance Mike and Molly, it looked very bland, I watched part of one episode and there was like this ten minute conversation on the use of sex toys between the two main characters culminating in the one guy saying "Have her use a feather on the bottom of your scrotum" or something along those lines. It doesn't seem to conjoin very well with a channel famous for their stupid Hallmark Hall of Fame movie-image with the American public).