• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

2 1/2 Men Ratings Continue To Drop

M

Mark Giardina

According to a report on GMA, Two and a Half Men's ratings went from around 40 million (season debut) to 15 million viewers.

Any thoughts why the decline?

Charlie Sheen had some comments. ;D
 
Mark_Giardina said:
According to a report on GMA, Two and a Half Men's ratings went from around 40 million (season debut) to 15 million viewers.

Any thoughts why the decline?

Charlie Sheen had some comments. ;D
Click to expand...

Everyone tuned in for the season premiere to see what happened. 40 million is NOT the regular weekly number for TAAHM. Nothing to see here. Actually, all last season, they averaged 15 million viewers per episode. So, hype lead it to 40 million viewers, and now it has settled back to what it was pre-hype.

The fact that they replaced the main character, and yet it still gets close to the same ratings, is amazing. I fully expected it to totally tank, and was expecting this to be the last season of the show. Now, I'm thinking it may have a second life yet.
 
The writers have virtually ignored all of the supporting cast excepting Berta (and she played much better off Charlie than teen-brain deficient Aston). All of that is gone. Cryer is trying to carry the load and has become almost a characterture of himself. Cryer can't be expected to have witty dialog with a dummy. And it goes without saying that Kurcher's casting was a mistake of monumental proportions.

I predict ratings will continue falling and we will have seen the last of this show by the end of the season. Too bad the battle of gigantic egos had to ruin it.
 
I still enjoy the show. Ashton has only made one mistake, in my opinion. Maybe the writing could be better, but I watched three episodes at once on my TiVo and while it would be better with Charlie, it still has potential.
 
landtuna said:
The writers have virtually ignored all of the supporting cast excepting Berta (and she played much better off Charlie than teen-brain deficient Aston). All of that is gone. Cryer is trying to carry the load and has become almost a characterture of himself. Cryer can't be expected to have witty dialog with a dummy. And it goes without saying that Kurcher's casting was a mistake of monumental proportions.

I predict ratings will continue falling and we will have seen the last of this show by the end of the season. Too bad the battle of gigantic egos had to ruin it.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that. I do agree that they have ignored the supporting characters since the relaunch, but you have to give them a chance to build the plot around the new characters, and set the table for the change. That's really hard to do with subplots like they have done with the show in the past.

I thought last week's show with the pot brownies was one of the funniest yet this year.
 
They're a handful of episodes in, so it's hardly shocking the full set of supporting characters haven't been employed yet. Berta was always the most commonly used averaged out, and given her role, it makes sense she'd be the one we'd see the most of so far.
 
TAAHM is still sorta funny, but not as much as with Charlie Sheen. One funny part I've experienced included when Walden takes Alan to Bridget's house-and get electrocuted climbing the fence. :D

-crainbebo
 
Perhaps I am in the minority here but I miss Charlie Sheen's character on Two-and-a-Half Men.

Sheen had the perfect chemistry to interact with Jon Cryer and Angus Jones, something that Aston Kutcher seems to lack.

IMHO Kutcher's character is nothing but a remake of Michael Kelso on That 70s Show, just with a beard and longer hair.

Granted there are still plenty of laughs generated by the great writers and I am sure that all of the actors are doing their best to make the show work. But like I said there is something missing without Sheen.
 
I thought I was the only one, who thought, Kutcher was doing a remake of his Kelso character.

I'm not surprised to see the show go on. After all CBS pretty much owned Monday nights since "I Love Lucy"
 
It has been a one joke show since the beginning. Sheen is a great comedic actor and pulled it off and made it work. He made the support cast better than what they really are. It is now Seinfeld with out Jerry.
 
The Voice of Reason said:
Perhaps I am in the minority here but I miss Charlie Sheen's character on Two-and-a-Half Men.

Sheen had the perfect chemistry to interact with Jon Cryer and Angus Jones, something that Aston Kutcher seems to lack.

IMHO Kutcher's character is nothing but a remake of Michael Kelso on That 70s Show, just with a beard and longer hair.

Granted there are still plenty of laughs generated by the great writers and I am sure that all of the actors are doing their best to make the show work. But like I said there is something missing without Sheen.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is Kutcher's fault, although they are going with the "dumb" angle (he also used to be a womanizer on That 70's Show, not so much on TAAHM).

I think the problem exists with the writers, and who can blame them? They have to come up with a storyline that isn't even close to believable (What billionaire lets the estranged brother of a former owner of a house he just bought stay living with him?) It's not to say they are bad writers, they are doing the best they can, but the premise still isn't really "set up", so it doesn't feel natural. Charlie's relationship with Cryer seemed believable, rich brother who deep down feels guilty and won't kick his brother to the curb because he cares about him).

You can't just make them best friends off the bat, you have to put them in challenging situations, which again, are stretches. I think once they can establish a good friendship between Kutcher and Cryer, that it won't feel so awkward. Yes, it won't be the same as Sheen, but to not give any credit to the rest of the cast, writers, etc. is selling the rest of the show short. Without writers, Sheen has nothing, and he has proven that this past summer.
 
When all that new-character-introduced-to-the-plot mess happens somewhere in real life and it goes viral, then we'll all give the writers their due credit for brilliance, and an Emmy, if we can. :)
 
The Voice of Reason said:
Perhaps I am in the minority here but I miss Charlie Sheen's character on Two-and-a-Half Men...
Click to expand...

When there's a thread titled "2 1/2 Men Ratings Continue To Drop," I would say "minority" is very much on the contrary.
 
mnradiofan said:
I think the problem exists with the writers, and who can blame them? They have to come up with a storyline that isn't even close to believable (What billionaire lets the estranged brother of a former owner of a house he just bought stay living with him?) It's not to say they are bad writers, they are doing the best they can, but the premise still isn't really "set up", so it doesn't feel natural. Charlie's relationship with Cryer seemed believable, rich brother who deep down feels guilty and won't kick his brother to the curb because he cares about him).
Click to expand...
The sad thing is that the creative crew for 2 1/2 Men is Chuck Lorre and his staff. The same people that have written great story and dialog for this show for years. One main character was replaced but the writers and directors remain the same. At least when Aaron Sorkin left the West Wing, you could see the difference in the writing.
 
I am still enjoying the show and continue to watch every week. The only thing I don't like is Kutcher's "airheadedness" that is being too overplayed.
 
I agree. We know Kutcher is a smarter person in real life than the one he portrays on the show. In fact, I think that's why 2 1/2 Men was the top comedy in the first place. Charlie Sheen was bascially playing himself.

You sort of miss the womanizer element. Kutcher misses his wife, Cryer is supposed to be a loser with women and Jones is only in high school.

I also think they are over-using Cryer. Yes, he won an Emmy but he shouldn't be the main character on the show, even though they are now giving him equal billing with Kutcher and writing many plots around him.

I think they should have simply employed John Stamos to be Sheen's character and continue the show with the same characters and plot lines. Stamos has shown he's a really good actor, not just a pretty face, on E.R. and on Broadway. I don't think Kutcher is as good a comic actor. But he's younger so maybe that's what got him the gig.

Never the less, it still is a funny sitcom. The characters are old friends. I watch almost for Conchata Ferrell's quips. "Hey, Skippy!" (Does anyone remember she started her career in the 70s on the controversial ABC sitcom "Hot L Baltimore" and was in LA Law?)

So even though it isn't as good without Sheen, I still only watch two sitcoms every week... 2 1/2 Men and its co-production, The Big Bang Theory.

Gregg
[email protected]
 
Gregg said:
You sort of miss the womanizer element. Kutcher misses his wife, ...
Click to expand...

In that case stay tuned as real life is about to meet fiction. :-X
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom