• 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!

im not a fan of ashton kutcher and have a wait and see attitude.then i was not a big fan of the 2 and a half men show so i don`t have a horse in the race.

it should show charlie sheen that his absurd behavior(drug induced or not) will not force the people behind the show to pick him up again.if sheen kept under the radar and quietly negotated with the people in charge he might have been back on the show a while back.

but no . he`s WINNING!
 
landtuna said:
He was a brilliant George W.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.
Click to expand...
He was a brilliant George W.

I can't see this show working with Kelso.
 
if charlie sheen showed some sense and acted with a bit of humility(even if it was faked) and started negotations in private he probally would have had his old job back long ago.
 
I dunno. Was reading somewhere on the 'net just yesterday how the writers were going to dispose of Charlie and it was sounding a bit nasty and vindictive. I don't think Chuck Lorre is in a forgiving mood and doubt he'd be receptive to a return engagement with Charlie Sheen (who gave the show many fits before lashing out at Lorre in the press).
 
Why would the writers care? Charlie said he'd come back, sure he'd cause problems, but he said, he'd come back. It's the producers that didn't want him back, putting the writers out of work.

Still I guess it wouldn't be the first time writers tried to be "funny" and take shots at a departing star.
 
the writers couldn`t write charlie out of the show on their own.that decision would have to come from the higher ups.
 
I should have been more specific. The writers write based upon what Lorre wants. He is the one who is reported to be vindictive towards Sheen.
 
I can certainly understand Chuck Lore's feelings, but Sheen is a mess. He definitely needs help. He's on drugs and not well. He's got money and his circle of friends care more about his money than forcing him to get some help. Same thing with Michael Jackson, everyone around him was too scared to say "Stop acting like an idiot and grow up." He'd be alive today if someone valued him more than his money.

But then again, who am I to talk, I never been around the receiving end of someone who had a lot of money. But at least I'd like to THINK I'd do the right thing :)

So I guess Ashton will play

1) Charlie's illegitimate son
2) The illegitimate half brother (
3) Jake's real father (there's a 15 year difference between him an Angus, but it's do-able. Charlies ex-wife cheated on him with a teenager)

It'll be interesting to see. Since the show is loosely based on Sheen's own rich, boozing, womanizing lifestyle, I guess it'll have to be reworked a bit.
 
landtuna said:
I dunno. Was reading somewhere on the 'net just yesterday how the writers were going to dispose of Charlie and it was sounding a bit nasty and vindictive. I don't think Chuck Lorre is in a forgiving mood and doubt he'd be receptive to a return engagement with Charlie Sheen (who gave the show many fits before lashing out at Lorre in the press).
Click to expand...
Rush Radio 94.5 in Greensboro had some discussion of this and it was pretty graphic. Kids' ideas about how to kill off Charlie.

I was trying to listen to WMUU, a beautiful music station, but I'm just too far east and the terrain is hilly.
 
Wouldn't it be funny if all this was a farce, and they decide to bring Charlie back later in the season just to get the ratings? Maybe he is shown dead in first episode, but the reality is he was on some desert island with Rose and is rescued by February sweeps.
 
I heard today that the Charlie Sheen roast will be televised on the Comedy Channel the same night as the first episode of the new season of Two and A Half Men.

Think that is an accident? ;D
 
I have a new theory.

In the season premiere, Ashton's character will be introduced. Then Charlie will walk in the door and Ashton will look right at the camera and yell, "You've all been Punk'd!" and everything will be back to normal.
 
vchimpanzee said:
In the season premiere, Ashton's character will be introduced. Then Charlie will walk in the door and Ashton will look right at the camera and yell, "You've all been Punk'd!" and everything will be back to normal.
Click to expand...

I could see that happening if the sitcom was sinking in the ratings and something drastic was needed to get it back up but that was not the case.

The addition of AK might be the event that puts the nail in the coffin though. I think it would have been much wiser to expand the roles of the existing characters, particularly Cryer (Alan) and Ryan Stiles (Herb). Charlie was not much more than a drunken straight line anyway.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom