• 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

Two & Half Men new low

T

therealjm12

I surprised no one has brought up last Thursdays (1/10/13) installment. It was not only awful it was insulting. They did a
*#@%ing musical! I have been patient with the series. I have not dished Ashton Krutcher (I liked him on That 70's). Allen has become a one dimensional, effeminate, weakling, sponging, jerk. A very talented supporting act is not being used. There have been very few episodes that have shown any signs of the great writing of the past. But now a Musical!?
I guess I have been watching the show lately to get a short view of Berta. They need to spin the show off to the original supporting cast, Rose, Berta, Judith, Herb, Evelyn, even the kid, etc.
 
I accidentally flipped it on and thought "am I watching Glee" (which is another show I despise)

Of course the point I turn it on we have to have the guy screaming "I'm Gay"
 
also I thought the new low was "Mr Morals" is coming back (Dumbass err Angus) with his new "cougar love" Joy from "My Name is Earl"
 
I'm not fond of musicals, especially non-musical series that thought it was a bright idea to have a special musical series. One episode of "The Simpsons", "All Singing, All dancing", was not only awful in itself for being a clip show, it was even worse with the fill-in segments being mostly-singing.
 
After really enjoying the show through the first six seasons I gave it a jaundiced eye during the 7th (when Charlie was acting like a 7-year old off screen) and dumped it entirely when Kutcher came aboard. I dumped it for all the reasons you cited and the one that upset me the most was the virtual absence of an excellent supporting cast. How the producers could make a mistake like that is not fathomable.

I don't know how the show maintains its high rankings as it has been absolute trash. Cryer used to be the perfect foil for Charlie. Now he is just a sniveling wimp and no one else in the current cast deserves mention.

As for the musical (which I did not watch), I happened to catch a "news" item on the 'Net a few days ago which featured Cryer talking about why they did it and his explanation was that "they were just having fun". I assume he meant the cast because it appears the audience didn't.

I suspect the milking will end at the season's end. Cryer and Jones certainly have enough money that they never have to work again if they don't want to and Kutcher can go back to his usual pile of crap productions.
 
landtuna said:
As for the musical (which I did not watch), I happened to catch a "news" item on the 'Net a few days ago which featured Cryer talking about why they did it and his explanation was that "they were just having fun". I assume he meant the cast because it appears the audience didn't.
Click to expand...
Most productions lately, especially a musical episode like that, seem to be done for the amusement and benefit of the cast than the audience.
 
CANCEL IT ALREADY!! Put Alan, Berta and Jake's characters to rest already!

-crainbebo
 
Mark said:
The Simpsons "Sherry Bobbins" was awesome.
Click to expand...

That episode I did like, as it had creativity for the music and songs written in the same vein as "Mary Poppins". As for the aforementioned "All Singing, All Dancing", the songs were practically there just to fill the gaps between clips, and it showed.
 
ihEARDtHAT said:
I read a story the other day that said they want Angus Jones back for next season. However, at the present time, nobody is signed to a contract for next year.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Apparently they even fixed him up with a cougar love interest. What could be more appropriate? ;D
 
I’m glad to read others thought the same thing I did when seeing that “musical interlude” during the airing of Two-and-a-Half Men.
That episode jumped the shark as far as I am concerned when it comes to this show.
Charlie Sheen has to be laughing himself sick after this episode aired.
Pull the plug CBS!
 
unclehonkey said:
also I thought the new low was "Mr Morals" is coming back (Dumbass err Angus) with his new "cougar love" Joy from "My Name is Earl"
Click to expand...
Someone must have slapped Angus in the back of the head and told him to shut up unless he wants to forfit the huge amount of money he makes weekly for just a few minutes apperance on the show.
 
The Voice of Reason said:
Charlie Sheen has to be laughing himself sick after this episode aired.
Pull the plug CBS!
Click to expand...

From what I understand, Sheen still gets part of the profits from the show - and not just the episodes he was in. So, if true, it's actually in his financial best interest for the show to continue.
 
Lkeller said:
From what I understand, Sheen still gets part of the profits from the show - and not just the episodes he was in. So, if true, it's actually in his financial best interest for the show to continue.
Click to expand...

From what I understood Charlie Sheen gets residuals from the shows that he appeared on; which are still in reruns on a few cable television networks.

As for Charlie receiving any extra money since Ashton Kutcher replaced him, that I am not certain about but I find it highly unlikely.

I really don’t care if the show still garners high ratings for CBS. The program hasn’t been the same since Sheen’s departure along with reducing the role of Conchetta “Berta” Farrell.

Kutcher appears to be bored playing Walden Schmidt while Jon Cryer’s character of “Alan” isn’t as entertaining as it once was.
 
The Voice of Reason said:
Lkeller said:
From what I understand, Sheen still gets part of the profits from the show - and not just the episodes he was in. So, if true, it's actually in his financial best interest for the show to continue.
Click to expand...

From what I understood Charlie Sheen gets residuals from the shows that he appeared on; which are still in reruns on a few cable television networks.

As for Charlie receiving any extra money since Ashton Kutcher replaced him, that I am not certain about but I find it highly unlikely.
Click to expand...
Unlikely, or not - Sheen bested Chuck Lorre through his lawsuit, and received a settlement of $125 million. "Residuals," in the common meaning of the word, have nothing to do with it.

Reportedly, the reason was that there was no morals clause in Sheen's contract. His behavior may have been crude, distasteful, and disrespectful of his boss; but that apparently didn't give Lorre adequate legal grounds to fire him.

Sheen has received $25 million up front. The additional $100 million is to come from the profits of the show in syndication over the next 7 to 10 years. So to the extent that the Kutcher episodes extend the show's run, and make the package more valuable in syndication, Sheen will reap extra rewards.

Yes - Charlie is probably "laughing himself sick" -...all the way to the bank.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom