• 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

Ashton Kutcher... Winning!

Good on him. I might have to start watching the show. Myself, I thought Charlie Sheen had only one expression on his face. Hilarious on Ferris Bueller's Day Off; not so much on a regularly scheduled sitcom.

The People article mentioned that they were considering Hugh Grant. That might not have been a good fit. Hugh Laurie does well concealing his British accent; I'm not so sure Hugh Grant could have.
 
Is he replacing Sheen, in other words recasting the role, or just an addition. They're probably make him Charlie Harper's illegitimate son from a one night stand
 
Given his success in movies and commercials, I'm sure Kutcher doesn't need or want more money. So we either are being "punk'd," or Kutcher wants to do it for fun.

If it's for real, great play by CBS and Lorre - people will definitely tune in to see Ashton Kutcher - at least out of curiosity, if nothing else. If the writing sustains, the show could have a boffo last year or two.

BTW - I'm sure they won't cast him as Charlie Harper - that would be ridiculous. He'll be a new character, altogether. Speculating - maybe "Charlie" has finally kicked Alan out of his Malibu pad, so Alan has to find somebody new to freeload off of, and he finds Asnton.
 
I thought the show was done after Charlie had left, and I was never particularly a fan of his or the show.

I have to admit, though, that I think Kutcher is an inspired choice- somewhat left field and he is a rather big movie actor, but I know I will tune in to see how they transition to him.

The other names that were thrown out- John Stamos, Hugh Grant, and the like, all seemed like 'replacements'. I think the key to making a successful transition away from the Sheen era is to play off his philandering ways, but not copy them entirely. Certainly if Kutcher is playing an illegitimate son from Charlie's past, they have the opportunity to continue the jokes about Charlie's philandering without having Kutcher be 'the new Charlie'.
 
He will make far less money than Sheen. They are reporting between $625,000 and
$900,000 per episode. He should add a new dynamic to the show and has many
followers (fans). I bet he will be Sheen's cousin.......2 1/2 may actually be better,
but I still won't watch it.
 
Lkeller said:
Given his success in movies and commercials, I'm sure Kutcher doesn't need or want more money. So we either are being "punk'd," or Kutcher wants to do it for fun.
Click to expand...

An actor doing a show just for fun - now there's a curious concept. Could lead to a brilliant performance as long as the fun lasts; could lead to a mail-in performance if the show stops being fun.
 
Sheen is already predicting failure............
Like he's really gonna say, "This guy might even be better and more popular than I ever was."
NOT GONNA HAPPEN
 
gregg75 said:
Sheen is already predicting failure............
Like he's really gonna say, "This guy might even be better and more popular than I ever was."
NOT GONNA HAPPEN
Click to expand...

If they really get Kutcher and the writing is good, the show will get good ratings and go another year or two - nothing longer than that, but I'm sure the producers don't care - they're just trying to get another season or two out of the franchise. Again - Kutcher doesn't need the money, so I'm sure they can pay him less than Sheen - nobody cares - least of all, Ashton Kutcher.

It's not about the money..it's about whether or not you're considered one of the Hollywood 'good guys' that are easy to work with (Kutcher), or a temperamental out-of-control a**hole to be shunned by producers in the future (Charlie Sheen).
 
Kutcher could easily pass as Charlie Harper's brother but not his son. It would be way way out of nowhere if they decided to have Kutcher to be Charlie Harper's son as he would have to had him when he was only about 12 or 13 years old.

Speaking of Kutcher, didn't Demi Moore (Kutcher's wife and 16 years older than he is) work with Charlie Sheen in something? I seem to believe that they did a movie together but it probably has been a while back if they did.
 
I never thought Sheen was deserving of the accolades he received for the show. In addition to very good writing the show has had a consistent and top talent cast since its inception. Charlie has existed off that as much as he's contributed - maybe more. Maybe lots more.

That said, I think Kutcher is a terrible choice and cannot fathom how and in what capacity he could make a contribution. He is pretty typical of the sight-gag twenty-something "comics" that fester inside modern TV and movie-making these days. If his schtick hasn't improved substantially I foresee a wholesale exodus of the older portion of the demo. There is probably nothing that can save the "Lady Gag-Me Generation" from finding Kutcher's humor enjoyable but I'd be very surprised if he doesn't kill the show deader than George Gobel's brown pair of shoes.

The only positive thing I can find in Kutcher's nomination is that it prevents other less talented people (yes, I'm thinking of you, Will Ferrell) from mucking it up.
 
I think Kutcher and 2 &1/2 Men could work. That show has excellent writing. If any show in history could make such a transition work it would be them.
My suggestion: Let him play Kelso from 70's Show. Pick up where that show leftoff. He was much older than the character he played by the time the series ended. Kelso ended up working for PLAYBOY. That could work very nicely into 2 &1/2 Men.
Problem is, two different studios involved.
 
therealjm12 said:
My suggestion: Let him play Kelso from 70's Show. Pick up where that show leftoff. He was much older than the character he played by the time the series ended. Kelso ended up working for PLAYBOY. That could work very nicely into 2 &1/2 Men.
Problem is, two different studios involved.
Click to expand...
Since "That 70's Show" was set in the '70's and 2 & 1/2 Men is set in current time, how could they explain that Kelso has only aged 5 to 10 years in a 30 to 35 year time period? I graduated from high school in 1979 and I just turned 50 this year.
 
I also graduated in 1979 and loved that 70s show, except for Kelso. He was the worst actor/character/jack*ss/moron cast. Eric was dull and boring, but Kelso was a brain dead clown jerk who was mainly used for the comic silliness effect in order to appeal to the 20something adult juvenlies in the audience. Since the show was set in a time period in which most of the viewership wasn't even conceived yet they had no idea what the show was about, other than the circle thing. Kelso has no talent, just a good PR firm shoving his name everywhere. Publicity doesn't equal talent. He hasn't had any TV shows since 70s show, all of his 'movies' targeted at those 20something big babies, didn't last very long at the multiplex and ended up in the bargain bin at Walmart. He will kill off that show for good, which may only last a few episodes. Maybe its a studio ploy in order to get out of all of the those actors contracts and avoid any early termination payouts? Its doomed to failure for sure.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom