2.5 Men without Charlie, will it work?

Richard Dower

Alot of egos and truckloads of money is invested in this show. For Lorre it would be a HUGE face saving exercise if Kutcher can pull in the punters, nay...ratings.

The unknown is will the audience take to Kutcher?...or is it a case of, no Charlie = no show!
I'll definately watch as i like the show, but i loathe Kutcher :mad: , i'm glad that at least the cast and crew get paid for one more season at least.

Melion

No it wont work. What role is AK playing?

Now just sit and wait for all the "smart" comments about how poor it was with Charlie Sheen anyway.

Mr E

I'll watch the first one (to see how they pull off the switcheroo), and I'm sure others will do the same.

If it's a funny episode, it could be a huge ratings draw. It could give it a shot in the arm.

Richard Dower

Mr. E - maybe you can come up with more funny/snarky poll options?

Mr. Guappa

The show had gone very stale in the last while so Kutcher could give it a fresh impetus. He wouldn't have been my first choice for the role but I'll give him a chance. Hopefully Alan and Jake will get expanded roles to pick up the slack. I'm fairly optimistic that it will work.

Sudden Valley

I don't think it will work. firstly, Charlie was the only character consistently funny in the show. it would be like Frasier without Frasier. Secondly, i don't think Kutcher is good enough as a lead in a comdey series. His last few comedic films have been dire and in the 70's show he was just a minor one-joke character.

Looks like a cynical move by Lorre in order to prove he was right in the whole debacle.

Niles

I'll give it a chance. The show was hardly going to go far beyond another two seasons or so anyway. It might do well with a new lead, though it will be interesting to see how the Kutcher is brought in. For example I think Scrubs actually improved a bit once Zach Braff left the cast and Kerry Bishé took the lead. It was fresh, we're weren't stuck with the same old routine, the same old mannerisms, etc. It didn't work out, but Two and a Half Men has the advantage that audiences will already be familiar with Kutcher (I'm all for an unknown actor but acknowledge that may not be the case for the masses) so that may help while at the same time giving the show new blood.

Two and a Half Men is way overrated though.

FreudianSlippers

Did it ever work? My view is no.

pickarooney

Of course it worked. The ratings were through the roof. I've only ever seen ten minutes of it though and it really, really did not appeal to me.

JP Liz V1

Without Charlie the show is doomed imo and Kutcher is awful choice as replacement

Yakult

Could work, after all its just pun after pun with a bit of story.

pickarooney

Someone should get AH syndicated.

allanb49

Thing is the ratings in america where huge,

Everyone Loves Raymond was huge, but it too wasn't great and didn't perform over here or anywhere other than the states i reckon,

Shows like 2.5 men and Raymond go on for years, When the likes of Arrested Development, My Name is Earl and many more get cancelled before there time,

I think this change will go the same way as 10 Simple Rules for Dating My Daughter or something like that,

When Ritter died they brought in that short blonde guy and it slowly went off.

I say first episode will be a big draw, but slowly over the course of 5 episodes or so it will peter off and be largely forgotten with people who wanted to see what Kutcher was like getting bored and "Fans" of the show saying it isn't the same since Charlie left

gonedrinking

Charlie Sheen is 2 and a half men. For me, Alan had the funniest moments, but Charlies relationship with Alan and Jake and Berta are what made the show and held it together, just won't be the same without him. I can't stand Kutcher, I won't be watching.

ejmaztec

It never worked for me whoever was in it, and I could never understand the hype or the mad money involved in the whole set-up.

nkay1985

I have to say I never found it funny in the slightest so I don't really know. Americans loved it for some reason. I've always got the feeling that Charlie Sheen was the main attraction but maybe I've gotten the wrong end of the stick.

So they're replacing one unfunny egotistical nitwit with another unfunny egotistical nitwit.

Jazzy

Melion wrote: »

Now just sit and wait for all the "smart" comments about how poor it was with Charlie Sheen anyway.

it was a piece of sh1t brain wasting mess of a show and is a flag bearer for retarded entertainment the world over. low standards, low quality, low brow - the show has NO redeeming features and should be deleted from existence as soon as. sorry

pickarooney

Jazzy wrote: »

it was a piece of sh1t brain wasting mess of a show and is a flag bearer for retarded entertainment the world over. low standards, low quality, low brow - the show has NO redeeming features and should be deleted from existence as soon as. sorry

It had its down sides as well though.

Johnny D. Mudd

Quite frankly, the one thing that made that show, at least for fans of the show, was Charlie. Yes his womanising, beer-swilling and karma-dodging ways may have grated on the nerves of some but his cocky, care-free and almost naive attitude made him a charming bastard. Charlie's tempestuous relationship with not just Alan but almost anyone he came into contact with provided much of the laughs in this show, again for those who could actually derive laughter from this show as it certainly has a lot of critics, and the complete reversal of attitudes and fortunes between him and Alan was quite notable as well.

Charlie Sheen played that character really well as I suspect that there's an awful lot of Charlie Sheen in Charlie Harper. Sheen played a smarmy, naive, sarky and downright mean-spirited character in a manner that almost seemed natural. There's no way I could possibly see Ashton Kutcher filling in that role. Kutcher is the loveable hapless loser who never seems to know how he ends up in the predicaments he gets into. Sure you could say that he'll play that character in the show anyway but let's face it, there's already one main dim-witted character in this show and that character is Herb. There's no need for two like-minded characters here. Besides, the one thing that held this show together was Charlie. Getting rid of him means destroying the central core of this show. As far as I can see, without Charlie, there is no Two and a Half Men.

FreudianSlippers

pickarooney wrote: »

Of course it worked. The ratings were through the roof. I've only ever seen ten minutes of it though and it really, really did not appeal to me.

To quote an awesome band:

You're telling me that fifty million screaming fans are never wrong;
I'm telling you that fifty million screaming fans are fúcking morons.

The show pulled in good ratings, but it never really "worked" as a show that is worth putting any effort into watching IMO. Jazzy hit the nail on the head honestly.

Niles

I don't think Kutcher necessarily has to emulate Sheen's character for the show to be a success. He could bring his own take to the role. If I were to guess how he'll be introduced I'd venture that Charlie will have put the house up for grabs and done a runner (with Rose?), with Kutcher's character buying the house and Alan and Jake somehow staying as lodgers under some clause. Kutcher's character will probably be a womanizing millionaire of some kind but the similarity can end there; he need not have the same personality traits as Charlie. I guess we'll just have to see what happens.

smokedeels

The only good thing about the show was the sheer humour of it's success and imagining the train wreck such a placid show must be backstage, I turned it on today and found Sheen sitting on a coach drinking beer and assumed that he turned up drunk for filming, was directed to a sofa, handed a beer while somebody shouted action...

Now that it's all out in the open and the now axed Charlie Sheen is making money from people who think he's a hero for "playing" Loore and co, I've lost the only small interest I had in this show's existence.

No it won't work, and Kutcher will come off looking a flop and a bottom-feeder, it might kill his career (which would be nice)

Johnny D. Mudd

Niles wrote: »

I don't think Kutcher necessarily has to emulate Sheen's character for the show to be a success. He could bring his own take to the role. If I were to guess how he'll be introduced I'd venture that Charlie will have put the house up for grabs and done a runner (with Rose?), with Kutcher's character buying the house and Alan and Jake somehow staying as lodgers under some clause. Kutcher's character will probably be a womanizing millionaire of some kind but the similarity can end there; he need not have the same personality traits as Charlie. I guess we'll just have to see what happens.

The way I see it though, the one appealing aspect of this show was the character of Charlie. Given that the show seemed to revolve around his ridiculous exploits as well as his boyish naivety, having a completely different personality replacing that of Charlie may turn some of the more ardent viewers off. This usually signals the start of a program going under anyway. But you're right, we'll have to wait and see.

MagicMarker

I assume it's not going to be the same character?

In fairness, it couldn't get any worse, and I reckon Kutcher is a better comedic actor than Sheen, so it could well get better.

Capt'n Midnight

allanb49 wrote: »

Thing is the ratings in america were huge,

Everyone Loves Raymond was huge, but it too wasn't great and didn't perform over here or anywhere other than the states i reckon,

Shows like 2.5 men and Raymond go on for years, When the likes of Arrested Development, My Name is Earl and many more get cancelled before there time,

Will and Grace is another one of those shows where US success just didn't translate. But US success is what matters. Though I've heard of shows being made in Southern Europe for export to South America long after they died of old age in their home countries.

Ken.

It could have been worse than Kutcher, i read recently that the producers approached

Hugh grant

to take over as a direct replacement as charlie.

He at least had the good grace to turn it down.

migemo

Favourite joke from 2.5 men was when Berta pointed out to Alan that he was paying for an ex wife and an ex wife's house and he wasn't allowed in either one. Have to say i really liked the show. Berta was great. Always thought Sheen couldn't act but as the show was all about him i can't see it working without him.

Richard Dower

Jazzy wrote: »

it was a piece of sh1t brain wasting mess of a show and is a flag bearer for retarded entertainment the world over. low standards, low quality, low brow - the show has NO redeeming features and should be deleted from existence as soon as. sorry

It gave us Candy/April Bowlby...i'm most greatful for that

sdanseo

I've never seen the cult appeal of this show - to me it's just another mediocre sitcom I watch when there's nothing better on. Funny at times, but certainly not a classic.

Hugh Grant

would be great in a sitcom though.

Richard Dower

MagicMarker wrote: »

I assume it's not going to be the same character?

In fairness, it couldn't get any worse, and I reckon Kutcher is a better comedic actor than Sheen, so it could well get better.

That's assuming Lorre has the writing chops to allow Kutcher to be the better comedic actor, i personally don't think he is....just making a point.

Biggins

No.

Cannot stand Kutcher and his method of stupid, silly comedy.
Irritating sod when it comes to comedy!
(He not actually a bad decent straight actor to be fair)

Degag

Sudden Valley wrote: »

I don't think it will work. firstly, Charlie was the only character consistently funny in the show. it would be like Frasier without Frasier.

That's just a horrible statement. Frasier is one of the greatest comedies ever written with alot of fantastic characters. IMO Niles was the funniest character in the show but it also had alot of wonderful niche characters other than the main cast like Bulldog, Gill even Maris!

Regarding 2.5 men, i think it could be a success if they cast Kutcher as a new character. I think it would be a mistake to cast him as Charlie Harper, because

A. I don't think he could pull it off.

B. The show was getting stale to the casual viewer for a long time, there is only so much of Charlie screwing women, getting drunk, Alan giving out about his wives etc, Jake farting etc that you can watch. - Every show when you broke it down was basically the same. A new character could rejuvinate it in some way.

C. It'd keep the possibility of Sheen returning in the future. May seem unlikely, but money talks.

sky88

i think the show will actually be good with kutcher who i like but i think its ultimately going to fail

JP Liz V1

Did they need to replace Charlie?

I mean Jake is grown up and with Alan, Berta, Eveyln, Judith and even Herb and maybe keep Judd Nelson's and Michael Clarke Duncan's characters around also there was no need for Kutcher's new character

Degag

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Did they need to replace Charlie?

I mean Jake is grown up and with Alan, Berta, Eveyln, Judith and even Herb and maybe keep Judd Nelson's and Michael Clarke Duncan's characters around also there was no need for Kutcher's new character

I think they did. First of all, the title wouldn't make much sense and secondly they needed someone to give star billing to. Aswell as that i can't see where any humour would come from if Charlie wasn't replaced. I'm not saying he was the only humourous character in the show but he's the focal point of pretty much all of it.

Mr Freeze

I will watch it to see how they shoe horn Kutcher into it.

But I think he is a terrible choice for it really. He will probably just play the same character he did in That 70s Show, and he was annoying back then too.

Richard Dower

I would LOVED to have seen Hugh Grant...he would have been ace!

civis_liberalis

Mr E wrote: »

It could give it a shot in the arm.

Was that not the problem in the first place?

JP Liz V1

Two and a Half Men poster

Mr Freeze

I'm gonna go with Charlie dies and Kutcher is his son that nobody knew about and he inherits the lot and moves in with the lads and hilarity may or may not ensue.

Mr Freeze

Heard on the radio last night that they are indeed killing off Charlie and there will be a funeral and all that jazz before introducing the new character.

They quoted a source on the radio too, but I forgot the name of the site. :rolleyes:

blodvyn

I'll watch the first episode if only to see how they kill off charlie and bring in kutcher.

My opinion is that it will open with a funeral, perhaps kutcher being a long lost brother or so that's been given the house with the premise of charlie and jake living in it.

Perhaps we'll see a u-turn and have charlie give all his money to chairty, unlikely i know but you can never rule it out

Plazaman

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Heard on the radio last night that they are indeed killing off Charlie and there will be a funeral and all that jazz before introducing the new character.

They quoted a source on the radio too, but I forgot the name of the site. :rolleyes:

Great start to open with a funeral, they're always halarious (Source HERE).

Unless Kutcher takes a whole new approach to playing comedy and not his ditzy-dude naff that he seems to be stuck in, it won't work. I thought the sitcom itself was funny even with the repetitive storylines and will stick it out to see what happens.