"Two and a Half Men" reboot? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Baraka_Guru · 04-29-2011, 08:39 AM

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....

Quote:

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

Amid Sheen's last-ditch pleas to cast, Lorre has told Jon Cryer this reboot would involve a significant role for him and the introduction of a new, yet-to-be-cast character.

With time running out before the CBS upfront presentation in May, the plan to relaunch Two and a Half Men without Charlie Sheen is beginning to take shape.

Sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that series co-creator Chuck Lorre has hatched an idea to reboot the Warner Bros.-produced sitcom with a new creative direction that does not involve Sheen, who was fired from the series in March. Lorre is said to have presented close associates and Men co-star Jon Cryer with the plan, and the studio and network are aware of his intentions. According to an insider, Lorre has told Cryer this reboot would involve a significant role for him and the introduction of a new, yet-to-be-cast character.

Sheen, who is suing Lorre and Warner Bros. for $100 million, has frequently expressed his desire to return to the show as he crisscrosses the country on his "Violent Torpedo of Truth/Defeat Is Not an Option" comedy tour. A source tells THR that Sheen is still working behind the scenes to be reinstated, attempting as late as this week to set up meetings with Men cast members, hoping to clear the air and win their support. But Lorre is said to remain uninterested in meeting with Sheen, and Warners sources are adamant that Sheen will not be invited back.

Neither CBS nor Warner Bros. has said whether Men will return for a ninth season, but industry speculation is that the show will almost certainly return. And talent representatives say Warners has quietly begun pursuing an actor to appear on the series next season. Who that actor will be has become Topic A in Hollywood. Speculation has ranged from the plausible to the peculiar, with names from Woody Harrelson to Jeremy Piven to Bob Saget being bandied about. A Warners spokesperson says none of those actors is in contention.

While a new cast member wouldn’t make “Sheen money” -- in the $1.2 million realm per episode -- slipping into television's No. 1 sitcom would earn an actor a rate well above the usual freshman series fee, one observer says. But the role would come with intense pressure as blame could be placed on the newcomer if the revamped show flops.

Others have suggested Men might consider a "roommate" scenario, with multiple stars appearing in one or a few episodes to fill the Sheen void.

When exactly Men would return is another open question. Two sources say a midseason relaunch is more likely than a fall return. While delaying Men’s start would leave a significant revenue and ratings generator off the CBS fall schedule, the network and studio would have more time to retool the series. But unanswered questions about TV's most-watched comedy could upset ad buyers and upstage CBS' splashy upfront presentation next month.

Matthew Belloni contributed to this report.

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.

Jinn · 04-29-2011, 09:17 AM

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.

Baraka_Guru · 04-29-2011, 09:25 AM

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.

Frosstbyte · 04-29-2011, 10:32 AM

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.

Fremen · 04-29-2011, 11:11 AM

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.

Vaultboy · 04-30-2011, 03:54 AM

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.

KellyC · 04-30-2011, 01:10 PM

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?

Speed_Gibson · 05-01-2011, 07:11 PM

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.

View Poll Results: Who is the best choice to replace Sheen on Two and a Half Men (according to rumours)?
Woody Harrelson	4	26.67%
Jeremy Piven	0	0%
Bob Saget	1	6.67%
Sheen or no deal	1	6.67%
I have a better idea (see below)	0	0%
They should just let it go; it's over	9	60.00%
Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll

04-29-2011, 09:17 AM	#2 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	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. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel Last edited by Jinn; 04-29-2011 at 09:19 AM..

04-29-2011, 09:25 AM	#3 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	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. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

04-29-2011, 11:11 AM	#5 (permalink)
Fremen With a mustache, the cool factor would be too much Location: left side of my couch, East Texas	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. __________________ Google

04-30-2011, 03:54 AM	#6 (permalink)
Vaultboy Addict Location: Third World	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. __________________ "Failing tastes of bile and dog vomit. Pity any man that gets used to that taste."

04-29-2011, 10:32 AM	#4 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	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.

04-30-2011, 01:10 PM	#7 (permalink)
KellyC Comment or else!! Location: Home sweet home	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? __________________ Him: Ok, I have to ask, what do you believe? Me: Shit happens.

05-01-2011, 07:11 PM	#8 (permalink)
Speed_Gibson Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Location: right here of course	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. __________________ Started talking to yourself I see. Yes, it's the only way I can be certain of an intelligent conversation. Black Adder