• 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

Coming Soon: One and a Half Men? (Goodbye, Charlie)

M

MattParker

David Hinckley said:
Charlie Sheen rehab: Can 'Two and a Half Men' survive without star? CBS may consider casting change

...The Hollywood Reporter estimates Warner Bros. could lose $250 million if the show shut down for good.

And that raises the next logical question, which is whether the show could survive without Sheen.

Obviously "One and A Half Men" wouldn't be the same show. But could some other character be written into Sheen's role and keep the show viable?...
Click to expand...

Keith Olbermann got fired with only vague insinuations from those who disagree with him politically that he was "a pain in the ass." Will CBS and/or Warner Brothers keep Charlie on the payroll? Keep the show on the air? With whom could they replace him?
 
they could do a frasier where the brother and his son move to another city with a relative and for some reason the housekeeper goes with them.

sheen isn`t the only reason the show is popular.
 
flashback said:
sheen isn`t the only reason the show is popular.
Click to expand...

Sorry to disagree with you but Charlie Sheen makes that show. Jon Cryer could never carry the program by himself. Even if "Berta" had more of a presence, it still wouldn't be the same. And forget about Cryer and the kid playing his son Jake. Angus was funnier when he was younger. Now as a teenager he's just obnoxious.

No CBS won't toss Sheen overboard yet because despite his personal problems, he's the one drawing in the audience and thus the advertising dollars.
 
It would be like Sanford and Son without Redd Foxx. That didn't work out too well.
 
i was not saying they should get rid of charlie sheen right away.i was saying if charlie sheen for whatever reason can`t do the show or is too much to deal with for the network my idea is a way to go.

redd fox never left the show. it was the actor who played lamont who left .
 
The Voice of Reason said:
Sorry to disagree with you but Charlie Sheen makes that show. Jon Cryer could never carry the program by himself.
Click to expand...

Cryer is much more of the "couple" than Charlie but would still need a foil to play against. There are several actors I can think of off the top of my head that could successfully play "Charlie" but whether the show would succeed with them is another question. Fans don't typically like replacements.

The Voice of Reason said:
Even if "Berta" had more of a presence, it still wouldn't be the same.
Click to expand...

"Berta" plays off Charlie most of the time, not Cryer, but she has never been one of the primary actors on the show and probably would exhaust her resources pretty fast if given a larger (no pun intended) role.

The Voice of Reason said:
And forget about Cryer and the kid playing his son Jake. Angus was funnier when he was younger. Now as a teenager he's just obnoxious.
Click to expand...

He played a "dumb" kid and is now playing a "dumb" teen. No big surprise.

The Voice of Reason said:
No CBS won't toss Sheen overboard yet because despite his personal problems, he's the one drawing in the audience and thus the advertising dollars.
Click to expand...

The show is drawing in the viewers not Sheen by himself. C(BS) is paying $4M/episode but making in the neighborhood of $155M/season profit. Without Charlie though the show is probably doomed. It could go on ala "8 Rules" without Ritter but don't expect it to last long. It has probably run its course.
 
i prefered the 8 ways with james garner to the john ritter episodes .then i have been a big fan of james garner for decades before john riter got noticed.

that has nothing to do with the discussion but there it is.
 
flashback said:
i prefered the 8 ways with james garner to the john ritter episodes .then i have been a big fan of james garner for decades before john riter got noticed.

that has nothing to do with the discussion but there it is.
Click to expand...

Well, it actually might have something to do as it is probably the best example of a recent top of the line show that lost its star.

I too liked the full run of "8 Rules" but didn't like the convoluted story lines featuring once David Spade. He would have been fine as an occasional player but the show should have remained focused on the family (including the Garner character). I thought Katey Sagal did a very good job of carrying the show after Ritter's death with maybe the possible exception of trying to make her a singer.

The initial premise of "8 Rules" was the conflict between the parents. Once Ritter was gone there almost had to be another form of conflict and they found that with Space and Garner but it wasn't enough to carry the show. A similar problem would exist if Charlie Harper disappeared.
 
The Voice of Reason said:
flashback said:
sheen isn`t the only reason the show is popular.
Click to expand...

Sorry to disagree with you but Charlie Sheen makes that show. Jon Cryer could never carry the program by himself. Even if "Berta" had more of a presence, it still wouldn't be the same. And forget about Cryer and the kid playing his son Jake. Angus was funnier when he was younger. Now as a teenager he's just obnoxious.

No CBS won't toss Sheen overboard yet because despite his personal problems, he's the one drawing in the audience and thus the advertising dollars.
Click to expand...

I agree with Voice of Reason. It's not that Charlie Sheen in particular is so spectacular in the role, but that the character he plays is the central character in the show - it is "Charlie" (Harper - the fictional character) that the other characters react to, and around which the vast majority of the plots are based.

And to replace Sheen in that role after so many seasons wouldn't work - nobody would buy it.

There's no reason Sheen can't return to the show after his rehab if he wants to - he's got a substance abuse problem, not terminal cancer.

If for some reason Sheen doesn't return, I predict that they'll cancel the show - no Jon Cryer spin-off, no new "Charlie."
 
Look what happened when Sheen was brought in to replace Michael J. Fox as the lead character on that show.
It didn't last long did it?

It's very tough to replace a lead actor on a hit TV show with someone else. And I have to agree that Jon Cryer just could not carry the show alone, or even with another actor. CBS might as well just cancel the show if Sheen is unable to return.

There was a poll out on the internet asking the public if Sheen should pay the cast of Two and a Half Men while he's in rehab.
A majority of those who participated in the poll said yes. Like that is going to happen. Rehab costs big bucks and God knows Charlie has spent some money in and out of rehab.
 
I think CBS will do whatever they can to keep Sheen around. That show has been top 10 for years, which is hard to find these days.
 
Mark_Giardina said:
Look what happened when Sheen was brought in to replace Michael J. Fox as the lead character on that show.
It didn't last long did it?
Click to expand...

Nope--two seasons (one third of the run). But what's not possible to prove there is whether that length of time would have been significantly different had Fox stayed. It was only a top 20 show in its first year. It's entirely possible two years was all it had left in the tank, so to speak.
 
And they've ordered extras of a couple of other shows to help fill the gap.
 
I agree with Lkeller, Landtuna (both about this show and "8 Simple Rules") and The Voice of Reason.

I was going to comment on "Spin City" but I see someone already has. Jon Cryer in "The Famous Teddy Z" was enough incentive to watch this show, but Charlie Sheen I only knew from "Spin City", which I kept watching even after Michael J left.

Getting back to "8 Simple Rules", I discovered David Spade long after "Just Shoot Me" and that's a shame. I've enjoyed him wherever I've seen him since, and that includes "Rules of Engagement".
 
The easy way out is for Sheen to get into a car accident or something for a bit.
If he's in a body cast, covering the face, they can just leave a dummy in the hospital bed and a voice over can read his lines. (the few that he will have)

The cast and crew can work around that! The viewer won't even notice it's not really Sheen reading the lines!
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom