If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TMZ)   Charlie Sheen's "Michel J. Fox clause" may shake some extra cash loose from Warner Brothers   (tmz.com) divider line 31
    More: Unlikely, Charlie Sheen, Warner Brothers, clauses  
•       •       •

8974 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 08 Mar 2011 at 10:12 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



31 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2011-03-08 10:22:53 AM  
Two and a Half Men without Charlie Sheen would be ridiculous. He IS that show. Maybe they should try and do a remake of Seinfeld but without that awkward Jewish dude who makes funny observations about mundane things. Or Frasier without that guy with the big forehead. Or Dexter without Michael C. Hall. Or Mad Men without John Hamm.

Charlie Harper may seem like an interchangeable playboy like James Bond but I seriously doubt you are going to find someone to play Charlie better than Charlie. Though knowing Hollywood they will probably try casting Matt Le Blanc.
 
2011-03-08 10:24:26 AM  
Looks like Cyborg77 got that social media internship Charlie was looking to fill.
 
2011-03-08 10:25:28 AM  
Who would ever allow that clause in a contract?
 
2011-03-08 10:25:38 AM  
So if Charlie Sheen comes down with Parkinson's he keeps getting paid?
 
2011-03-08 10:31:35 AM  

Cyborg77: Though knowing Hollywood they will probably try casting Matt Le Blanc.


Le Blanc is playing a version of that character on Episodes right now and he's pretty damn good at it. He's actually the best thing about the show.
 
2011-03-08 10:37:25 AM  

howdyyall9999: Who would ever allow that clause in a contract?


Someone trying to keep their star on the show for a few more years.
 
2011-03-08 10:40:54 AM  
Damn, I knew I'd forgotten something about my new contract :-(
 
2011-03-08 11:06:10 AM  
Why all of a sudden are people talking about how good he is on the show? What, is it cool to like it now that Sheen is #winning? Jesus the show is shiat and will be shiat no matter who replaces him. Just let it die.
 
2011-03-08 11:09:16 AM  
Apparently I'm the only person whos farking sick of this guy.
 
2011-03-08 11:26:31 AM  

Old enough to know better: Apparently I'm the only person whos farking sick of this guy.


No. You are not alone. I just want Sheen to go away. I don't care if Warner has to pay him to shut up. Just make this douche bag go away. The media will clearly not ignore this meatbag.

It would be glorious if he charted a plane and invited Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, and perhaps a Kardashian or two. Make sure the plane is not over a heavily populated area,and that the flight crew all have parachutes. Fill in the blanks, and you have 'winning' of epic proportion.
 
2011-03-08 11:31:40 AM  
Protip: No matter if you are the highest-paid star on the most watched comedy on TV, and your show is a cashcow for all involved.

Do NOT piss off the Producer, especially if he runs the OTHER successful comedy on the network. The network will side with him, and shut down your show.

Syndication will make the Producer money. The network will make money off the reruns because of the ratings.

The only one not making money is the Production Company, who own your ass. Guess what's next?

Charlie Sheen got fired, not for any moral turpitude, but because he finally cost Warner Brothers a shaitload of money, for the rest of this season and next season.

/follow the money trail
 
2011-03-08 11:31:54 AM  

Cyborg77: Two and a Half Men without Charlie Sheen would be ridiculous. He IS that show.


Not true at all. The most damning thing the producers could do is pull a Bewitched and recast the character without saying anything about it. There are half-a-dozen actors in Hollywood right now of Sheen's age and standing who could play that role without having to think about it.

And they're all sober, and now suffering manic episodes.
 
2011-03-08 11:35:39 AM  

Foolkiller: howdyyall9999: Who would ever allow that clause in a contract?

Someone trying to keep their star on the show for a few more years.


And the star would have you by the balls forever.
 
2011-03-08 11:44:14 AM  
Instead of getting a new actor, they should leave the cast as it is, sans Sheen, and rename it to '2 men'
 
2011-03-08 11:53:25 AM  

TheMorgothPit: Why all of a sudden are people talking about how good he is on the show? What, is it cool to like it now that Sheen is #winning? Jesus the show is shiat and will be shiat no matter who replaces him. Just let it die.


This. Two and a Half Men is the new According to Jim. An awful, awful show that inexplicably gets ratings because Americans are morons and manages to stay on the air for damn near a decade.
 
2011-03-08 12:02:55 PM  
Cyborg77 2011-03-08 10:22:53 AM Two and a Half Men without Charlie Sheen would be ridiculous. He IS that show.
==================================================================

No, he's not. Jon Cryer, Conchetta Ferrell, Holland Taylor... all extremely hilarious. JD Walsh as the pizza guy, Ryan Stiles (despite his silly character) are also both awesome.

Just increase everyone else's screentime to compensate and Jon has basically taken over as the drunken whorish evil one this season anyway... just write a storyline that has Charlie either dying, going to rehab, or running off with Rose.

Honestly I doubt the ratings would suffer much at all
 
2011-03-08 12:55:39 PM  

Cyborg77: Two and a Half Men without Charlie Sheen would be ridiculous. He IS that show. Maybe they should try and do a remake of Seinfeld but without that awkward Jewish dude who makes funny observations about mundane things. Or Frasier without that guy with the big forehead. Or Dexter without Michael C. Hall. Or Mad Men without John Hamm.

Charlie Harper may seem like an interchangeable playboy like James Bond but I seriously doubt you are going to find someone to play Charlie better than Charlie. Though knowing Hollywood they will probably try casting Matt Le Blanc.


I had lost interest in the show, but this season showed improvement. But the focus has been off Sheen for a while. The stories have focused more on Alan and the kid. Bring back Rose has also been great because Charlie doesn't carry as much weight. It's odd. If Sheen "is the show," why has it been better when he carries less of the comic load?
 
2011-03-08 01:13:20 PM  
I think the chances of Sheen getting any money from WB using this "clause" is shaky at best......


/couldn't help it
 
2011-03-08 01:45:59 PM  

jake3988: Cyborg77 2011-03-08 10:22:53 AM Two and a Half Men without Charlie Sheen would be ridiculous. He IS that show.
==================================================================

No, he's not. Jon Cryer, Conchetta Ferrell, Holland Taylor... all extremely hilarious. JD Walsh as the pizza guy, Ryan Stiles (despite his silly character) are also both awesome.

Just increase everyone else's screentime to compensate and Jon has basically taken over as the drunken whorish evil one this season anyway... just write a storyline that has Charlie either dying, going to rehab, or running off with Rose.

Honestly I doubt the ratings would suffer much at all


Charlie just dissapears. Leave subtle hints occasionally from Rose that she either killed him or has him held captive in her house. Then do whatever, replace him, go on without him, etc.
 
2011-03-08 01:53:13 PM  
E!(hey, it's what they do best) pretty well covered this. (new window)
 
2011-03-08 02:01:03 PM  

DeaH: Bring back Rose has also been great because Charlie doesn't carry as much weight. It's odd. If Sheen "is the show," why has it been better when he carries less of the comic load?


Rose was always the best part of that show. It was really noticeable when she wasn't a regular anymore.

I haven't watched the show in years, but what made it watchable in the first place was that it was a thinly veiled play on Sheen's real life reputation. Then I guess people just got used to watching it, because that bit wore out sometime during the first season.

I have no idea why it's so high in the ratings now, except that there's usually some good eye candy to see during every episode. That's probably the same thing that kept Married...With Children on the air for so long. Psycho Dads across America love to stare at teh boobies, and you can't watch Cinemax with your kids.
 
2011-03-08 02:25:42 PM  
"Michel"? Michael's French now?
 
2011-03-08 03:25:04 PM  
Yeah THAT would be really hard to get around. If Charlie is off the show, the premise has already changed. It's no longer about a divorced man and his son living with his brother. Therefore change the name slightly and the show is now a spin off or sequel (See "Three's Company" becoming "Three's a Crowd" with just Jack). Then they don't have to pay #Winner Boy jackshiat.

Everybody sing:

"Well I'm an F-18 fueled by tiger blood
I'm a Vatican Warlock Assassin stud

I'm just living in style
With two goddesses
Just for shiats and grins
I beat up a hooker

Howard Stern's
Not much of a looker
Chaim Levine he is
nothing but a damn whore

I'm #Winning!!
I'm #Winning!!
I'm #Winning!!
Shiat! I'm fired from the show?!?!?

I'm #losing again..."
 
2011-03-08 03:36:46 PM  

howdyyall9999: Foolkiller: howdyyall9999: Who would ever allow that clause in a contract?

Someone trying to keep their star on the show for a few more years.

And the star would have you by the balls forever.


Or you can pay the guy to go away.
 
2011-03-08 03:41:42 PM  

zabadu: "Michel"? Michael's French now?


Gitdagfarkingfuggincrapdangit... I have *one* funny or even vaguely interesting post to make in the past three days and you gotta go and steal my thunder like that?

+1, and I hate you.
 
2011-03-08 03:45:58 PM  

I am not a Limivore: Old enough to know better: Apparently I'm the only person whos farking sick of this guy.

No. You are not alone. I just want Sheen to go away. I don't care if Warner has to pay him to shut up. Just make this douche bag go away. The media will clearly not ignore this meatbag.

It would be glorious if he charted a plane and invited Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, and perhaps a Kardashian or two. Make sure the plane is not over a heavily populated area,and that the flight crew all have parachutes. Fill in the blanks, and you have 'winning' of epic proportion.


Even simpler, just let Charlie pilot the plane since he's such a winner.
 
2011-03-08 06:58:30 PM  
I'm sure Chuck Lorre is tossing and turning on his mattress made of money.
 
2011-03-09 09:51:30 AM  
Why Would I Read the Article:
This. Two and a Half Men is the new According to Jim. An awful, awful show that inexplicably gets ratings because Americans are morons and manages to stay on the air for damn near a decade.

And According To Jim was the new Everybody Loves Raymond, which was the new Home Improvement...
 
2011-03-09 11:28:02 AM  

thefatbasturd: Yeah THAT would be really hard to get around. If Charlie is off the show, the premise has already changed. It's no longer about a divorced man and his son living with his brother. Therefore change the name slightly and the show is now a spin off or sequel (See "Three's Company" becoming "Three's a Crowd" with just Jack). Then they don't have to pay #Winner Boy jackshiat.


The problem is that those syndication contracts are for a show called two and a half men. So if you change the name of the show to Two men or one and a half men or whatever, you are no longer producing a show under that contract and you would be leaving a ton of money on the table.
 
2011-03-09 05:07:32 PM  

mechgreg: thefatbasturd: Yeah THAT would be really hard to get around. If Charlie is off the show, the premise has already changed. It's no longer about a divorced man and his son living with his brother. Therefore change the name slightly and the show is now a spin off or sequel (See "Three's Company" becoming "Three's a Crowd" with just Jack). Then they don't have to pay #Winner Boy jackshiat.

The problem is that those syndication contracts are for a show called two and a half men. So if you change the name of the show to Two men or one and a half men or whatever, you are no longer producing a show under that contract and you would be leaving a ton of money on the table.


Sure. Because it would be IMPOSSIBLE to syndicate a NEW show. And they would still be getting money for the episodes already filmed under the 2.5 men deal.
 
2011-03-09 10:24:23 PM  

thefatbasturd: mechgreg: thefatbasturd: Yeah THAT would be really hard to get around. If Charlie is off the show, the premise has already changed. It's no longer about a divorced man and his son living with his brother. Therefore change the name slightly and the show is now a spin off or sequel (See "Three's Company" becoming "Three's a Crowd" with just Jack). Then they don't have to pay #Winner Boy jackshiat.

The problem is that those syndication contracts are for a show called two and a half men. So if you change the name of the show to Two men or one and a half men or whatever, you are no longer producing a show under that contract and you would be leaving a ton of money on the table.

Sure. Because it would be IMPOSSIBLE to syndicate a NEW show. And they would still be getting money for the episodes already filmed under the 2.5 men deal.


It is kind of impossible to syndicate a new show. The stations that buy syndicated shows want to know that they are going to get a bunch of episodes not just a season or less. And they pay for stuff that is established and popular not new and unproven (or new and unpopular). I mean Friends is on in syndication all the time, but when was the last time you saw an episode of Joey in syndication? I am pretty sure it was never.
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report