"Two and a Half Men" reboot?
 

It was considered one of the top shows since it first aired in 2003. Two and a Half Men, as you know, was essentially pulled off the air after its lead actor Charlie Sheen lost his mind. There were a number of questions regarding whether it was gone for good, and for a while it looked to be the case.

Apparently, it's not necessarily so....

Chuck Lorre Hatches 'Two and a Half Men' Reboot Without Charlie Sheen (Exclusive) - The Hollywood Reporter

"No one cares about your feeble show without me." –Charlie Sheen
Charlie Sheen: Chuck Lorre a 'Low Rent, Nut-Less Sociopath' for 'Men' Reboot - The Hollywood Reporter

In addition to Two and a Half Men, Chuck Lorre, for those who don't know, is credited in such shows as Roseanne, Grace Under Fire, Cybill, Dharma & Greg, and The Big Bang Theory, as either creator, writer, and/or producer. So this isn't some guy with a weak attempt at saving his show; he knows what he's doing.

But do you think it will work?

I think it's possible. It's not like Sheen is untouchable in terms of the types of roles he plays. And the show could get new life with a different character type.

What do you think of the rumours?

Personally, I'd like to see Woody Harrelson fill the role. I think he'd do a great job, and there are a few ways he could approach it that would make it funny and compelling. I think that Cryer would be a great comedic foil to Harrelson (and vice versa), and the dynamic would work just fine.

I don't understand sitcoms anymore. I used to watch them when I was younger and my parents tuned in for the likes of Everybody Loves Raymond, but the lines seem so staged and the laugh track so excessive. Everyone bemoans the 'staged' nature of reality shows, but maybe I'm spoiled on them - all sitcoms seem cheesy as hell for me. I couldn't even watch five minutes of this show, and the vaunted "Big Bang Theory" that is supposed to appeal to my demographic is the same way.

Give me more Survivor, Bad Girls Club, Real World.. where the situations are almost too ridiculous to be staged.. I think they just cast well, hit Record, and cash in. People who argue that reality shows are staged for the audience are lying to themselves about just how asinine most of the 18-34 demographic really is. I'm sure they edit to make things look a little more dramatic or events more recent (minutes instead of hours), but it's still far more entertaining to my brain than watching as scripted "humor" show. I like scripted movies and TV that are drama (LOST, Battlestar Galactica,. etc) but that's because they're not trying to be humorous.

Sitcoms haven't changed since they were invented. They were always essentially a group of people in recurring situations where continual punchlines are normalized as an essential part of the narrative.

None of the humour was ever particularly sophisticated, and that is a limitation of the form and traditions of the genre.

I think maybe your tastes have changed over time, which is expected in anyone. I rarely watch TV, but I do occasionally catch bits of Two and a Half Men or The Big Bang Theory. I do it while eating dinner and to unwind and catch a few cheap laughs. I like to laugh a dumb things as much as sophisticated things. I don't think that will change. However, I prefer more elaborate humour these days, which is why I haven't actually watched a full episode of a sitcom in god knows how long.

I look at sitcoms as a casual entertainment. You know, like reading comics.

Two and a Half Men specifically, in my opinion, is what's filling the void since Married with Children went off the air.

I casually enjoy Big Bang Theory (though not NEARLY as much as How I Met Your Mother, about which I am, admittedly obsessed), but I can't watch even a minute of Two and a Half Men. My in laws love that show and watch it all the time and I just sit there jibbering. I don't understand what appeals to people about it so much, unless part of the appeal was watching Charlie Sheen's slow and steady descent from comedian to self-parody to utter madness. Clearly something about it makes people happy, because lord knows they've arrived in droves to watch it.

I am surprised that Angus Jones (or his agents) doesn't have more involvement in the next phase of this show. I feel like, while he may have been a little piece of the puzzle, he has to have been a critical piece. Unless he's made enough money to not care and wants to go, you know, have a childhood for a while instead of staying on TV, I'd find it bizarre for him to not be involved.

Finally, and pettily, I can't see how Married with Children, which was bizarre, pushing the envelope satire, can be occupying the same cultural landscape as Two and a Half Men which, whatever else it may be, is pandering and mainstream.

I voted for Woody Harrelson, as well.
I was impressed by his roles in Ed, Zombieland and 2012.
He can do comedy, and not just the Cheers goofball-type comedy, but the acerbic wit kind.
I'd take him over Bob Saget.

American shows, on average, run for way too long - typically until they fizz out and die. The reason why sitcoms, especially cannot become more sophisticated is because it is not designed with a story arc - its designed for ratings. How I met your mother, a title that implies an arc, is a prime example of a story that should have finished after one or two seasons.

I don't understand this show either, and that's after being forced to watch it on numerous occasions with family and friends. Having said that, Woody Harrelson would make a good Charlie Sheen replacement. I thought about Bob Saget being in there, but Jon Cryer is already a stiffy, who needs another one?

I much prefer the radio sitcoms that established the patterns they all follow now. I would listen to The Great Gildersleeve, etc. any day over this stuff.
Never have watched this tv show, and not likely to start no matter who is on it. Charlie Sheen was good in the Hot Shots! films though.
edit: I might watch Bob Saget if he was closer to his standup act than to the Danny Tanner role.