We Love TV!
This is just an unofficial fan page, we have no connection
to any shows or networks.
Please click here to vote for our site!
After Charlie: Can Ashton Kutcher Save Two and a Half Men?
Why Revamped Sitcoms Rarely Survive
Dropping a new lead into a hit show is
not as simple as, say, replacing parts of a car. In fact, itís more like
a heart transplant performed without anesthetic. Successful sitcoms have
their own kind of DNA, muscle memory and chemistry, creating a complex
and delicately balanced system. Yanking out the existing lead and
dropping in a new one introduces all kinds of trauma and foreign
elements into that system. Whether the new elements will combine with
the system to create a new balance or simply throw it into fatal shock
is an open question, even when the show is a solid hit like Two and a
Half Men and the new lead is as big a star as Ashton Kutcher.
In spite of the risks, we know why
producers are so intent on keeping successful sitcoms on the air after a
key actor has departed the scene. Established franchises with reliable
ratings can usually count on audience loyalty for another season or two
or even more. Compared to the risk of throwing an unknown new program
into the schedule, this is a no brainer from the networkís point of
For the audience, though, itís often a
set up for disappointment. Iíve been there, tuning in week after week to
the revamped version of a previous favorite- initially anticipating with
faint hope that this (or maybe this) will be the episode which returns
the show to greatness- or at least half decentness; gradually accepting
that the glory days are over; then numbly watching from sheer habit,
till finally I get bored and give it up. Such is the nature of our
attachment to a long running show- exactly the nature networks count on
in these cases.
Yet I think itís fair to ask if such
shows really should be allowed to continue when their most likely fate
is to become one of TVís walking dead. Like zombies, these shows can
still move but thereís no longer anyone at the wheel. And like
vampires, they continue to suck on our time and energy but no longer
give anything back.
Why does the loss of just one
character have such a debilitating effect? The answer frequently has
something to do with the fact that the character who departs is gone
precisely because they were compelling enough to attract other offers to
the actor. But part of what made them so compelling is that they
embodied the story engine of the show.
Iím not talking here about surface
story, such as plotlines which carry individual episodes- ďJimmy falls
down the well, Lassie goes to rescue him, falls in and hilarity ensues
ÖĒ kind of thing- or even story arcs which span whole seasons. Instead,
Iím talking about the primary storylines which underpin whole series.
These primary storylines can be
surprisingly small yet are essential to the success of a program. They
are what give a series its emotional foundation and forward momentum
(even though this may not be obvious from episode to episode) and are so
essential to the process that once they are resolved (or left dangling
because a key character has departed) the life of the series is
So if Liz Lemon (30 Rock) ever
gets a life (or truly gives up and joins a nunnery) or Larry David (Curb
Your Enthusiasm) finally (and miraculously) gets some respect (or
figures out why no one will give him any) then those shows will have
resolved their underlying storylines and it will time to say goodnight.
Frasier ended with the main characterís quest for love and
connection (the engine storyline) unresolved but still front and center
and clearly in progress- a variation that worked perfectly well. By
contrast, Eric Foreman (That 70ís Show) fully resolved that
programís main story when he finally stood up to his overbearing dad and
departed for Africa but unfortunately also left his previously
entertaining cast mates spinning in aimless circles for one last sad
season, giving us a clear example of sitcom walking dead syndrome in
Even shows which donít seem to have a
specific story engine generally do. Seinfeld, the most famous
example, wasnít really about nothing as it purported to be. What it was
about, on the surface anyway, was the minutiae of everyday living-
ďalmost nothingĒ as amplified in the OCD crazed mind of the showís
creator- and thus essentially a modern comedy of manners. But underneath
it was more about a group of people trying desperately not to grow up,
with the fixation on minutiae more story vehicle than core message.
This may explain why the final episode
of Seinfeld was so particularly unsatisfying: instead of
addressing the real emotional engine of the series it focused on
resolving the surface storyline by bringing the characters to justice
for all their rude and self-serving behavior. Since it is the deeper,
emotional story through which we actually attach to the characters and
their adventures, this left the audience feeling unsettled rather than
All of this, of course, is not so very
different from the way feature films work, though over a much longer
span of time. But the fact that TV series are so often extended beyond
their proper shelf life makes me wonder if the folks in the front office
really understand this most essential point.
This brings us, then, to the show at
hand. Does Two and a Half Men stand a chance with its newly
transplanted main star? To answer this we first have to consider how
essential Charlie Sheen was to the foundation story.
When characters are extraneous, as
Frasier was on Cheers, they can depart without cracking the
foundation. That doesnít mean that only the star is essential to the
life of a program. In Frasierís self-named spin off, the writing was so
tight, none of the main characters could easily have left without
upsetting the balance- yet the show was clearly Frasierís and would
probably have been recoverable as long as he stayed on.
In this regard, Two and a Half Men
is a funny one. Although Charlie was presented as the lead, the series
seemed to be almost as much about his brother, Alan. So what was more
important: Alanís struggle to get out of his little brother/loser role
and successfully grow up or Charlieís struggle to stay in his
Peter Pan role and successfully avoid ever growing up? And accordingly,
was Sheenís character absolutely essential or could he be successfully
Iím inclined to say that the most
important question here is not whose story was dominant because in many
ways the real story lay within the big brother/little brother
relationship. These two guys were each otherís perfect foils and neither
individual story would have carried much weight without the other.
And that means that dropping a new
character into the lead is going to be tricky business. The creators
have wisely bypassed any attempt to slip a new character into Sheenís
role. This approach works on Broadway but not on long running TV series
where the characters become so real to us that replacement actors are
perceived as imposters. That really only leaves one other option:
dumping Charlie completely and introducing a whole new character.
Taking Charlie out of the picture
raises a lot of questions, though. Questions such asÖ where will Alan
and Jake live? And how will they get Berta to come along? And how will
they justify the ongoing presence of the mother who has always been
indifferent to her younger son? All this becomes problematic because the
sibling relationship (Charlie had the apartment, Alan had the problem)
didnít just drive the story engine in this situation comedy, it also
provided the container for all the pieces- was is, in fact, the very
In other words, Sheenís character was
tied up with this story in so many essential ways, on a functional level
there isnít much left to work with for the resurrection.
So in the face of all this, we now
drop in Ashton Kutcher as a broken hearted internet mogul who buys
Sheenís place andÖ.what? Letís Alan and his teenage kid continue
living there? Indefinitely? For free? These key story elements were
believable between brothers- even ones that didnít get along. After all,
the bonds of family are strong and hard to avoid even when one dearly
wishes to do so. But the bonds between thrown together strangers? Not so
If this is the scenario, Iím sure the
producers will have concocted a justification to explain it but it
doesnít take deep analysis to see how far credibility is already being
stretched. A brother taking in a sibling is deeply plausible. But any
relationship between this rich stranger and his non-paying,
came-with-the-sale boarder will seem forced at best. Even having Alan,
say, just happen to find a cheap place next door reeks of convenience.
One way or the other, a justification
is just what this is- an excuse to keep the circumstances in tact beyond
reason. Consequently, there is no inherent power in this new set up-
like, say, the push and pull between brothers- to drive the story
forward. And that means everything which follows will to be equally
manufactured; darned into the fabric of the show- which inevitably
weakens its structure- rather than woven in from the very beginningÖ And
all this is before even considering the new chemistry between the main
characters and the logic of including all the supporting ones.
I want to make it clear that none of
this has anything to do with the acting abilities of Kutcher or the rest
of the cast or even the writersí undoubtedly valiant efforts. Itís just
a rule of story which is very hard to thwart.
So whatís the prognosis? Will the
patient survive the operation? The odds are against it but even if it
does what will be its quality of life? If it were up to me, I would just
pull the plugÖ
But since it isnít up to me, I will
probably tune in like everyone else to see how it goes. Train wreck?
Myocardial infarction? Those would at least be dramatic. But more
likely, it will just be listless-minimal movement without
motivation-though I would be happy to be proved wrong. Letís just say,
Iím not holding my breath.
Ellen Besen is the author of
Animation Unleashed: 100 Principles Every Animator, Comic Book Writer,
Filmmaker, Video Artist and Game Developer Should Know (Michael
Wiese Books, January 2009). Ellen Besen
has been working in animation for over 35 years. Her work has been show
in film festivals and venues across the globe, including MOMA and the
Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. Highlights of her career include directing
award-winning films for the National Film Board of Canada, broadcast
work on the topic of animation for CBC Radio (Canadian Broadcasting),
and film curating for such organizations as the Art Gallery of Ontario.
Besen is a former columnist for POV magazine and her film analysis
workshops are featured regularly at the Ottawa International Animation
Festival. She has written a popular series for Animation World Network
on such topics as animation and analogy, and is currently the creative
director of The Kalamazoo Animation Festival International. Besen was on
the faculty of Sheridan Collegeís School of Animation for nearly 20
years and continues to teach the principles of animation filmmaking on
an intensive one-to-one basis.
Back to the Main Articles
Back to the Main Primetime TV Page
We need more episode guide recap writers, article
writers, MS FrontPage and Web Expression users, graphics designers, and more, so
please email us
if you can help out! More volunteers always
Page updated 4/17/15