Sheen may not take 'Men' down with him

By Robert Bianco, USA TODAY

Can Men survive with its main man gone?

• 

  By Greg Gayne, Warner Bros.

  Charlie Sheen, right, used to carry the bulk of Two and a Half Men's comedic weight, but now, Jon Cryer is sharing the load.

By Greg Gayne, Warner Bros.

Charlie Sheen, right, used to carry the bulk of Two and a Half Men's comedic weight, but now, Jon Cryer is sharing the load.

As a practical matter, the answer is "probably yes." Nothing is decided and nothing is certain, aside from the certainty that star Charlie Sheen will not be back, absent some near-miraculous rehab/reconciliation.

But even without him, there are huge financial incentives for keeping Two and a Half Men alive for CBS and the show's studio, Warner Bros., which has already sold the now-threatened ninth season in syndication.

Many factors are no doubt being weighed as CBS decides whether it wants a revamped, probably recast Men, but it does seem that the network has increasingly less call to worry about any pro-Sheen viewer backlash. Some may find the star's current behavior amusing, and some exhausting. But surely most people can see that you can't head up a CBS sitcom that's popular in Middle America when you call that sitcom's jokes "juvenile and gross" on CNN, mock Middle America on ABC, and label your co-star Jon Cryer a "troll" on E! News.

If need be, CBS can take comfort in the fact that sitcoms have replaced stars and extended their runs before, albeit some had better artistic results than others.Cheers lost Shelley Long; Designing Women, Delta Burke; Spin City, Michael J. Fox (who was replaced by Sheen); M*A*S*H, Wayne Rogers and McLean Stevenson in the same season. Valerie even lost its Valerie,Valerie Harper, which was really a stretch.

There is, however, one big difference between Men and those shows: age. Long and Burke left after five years, the others even earlier. Men is going into its ninth year, a time when shows and audience desires tend to calcify.

A few years ago, you might also have said that Sheen was more central to his show than those other actors were, but that's no longer true. Over the past season, his role as the show's comic driving force has diminished, with far more of that weight being carried by Cryer, who was always the better actor. (It's worth noting that while Sheen has been nominated for an Emmy multiple times, the only acting win belongs to Cryer.) Sheen is clearly important, but at this point in the run, it's far easier to imagine Men without Sheen than it is to imagine, say, The Big Bang Theory without Jim Parsons.

It's even possible a switch could give the show a late-run creative boost, particularly if Men brings the right actor and character into the mix. And that does mean adding a new character, as there's no way viewers would buy John Stamos or Rob Lowe (who apparently is contractually stuck in Parks and Recreation anyway) ? or anyone other than Sheen ? as Charlie Harper.

Truth is, Men has fallen into the same rut as many long-running sitcoms: characters stagnate, plots and jokes repeat, performances get bigger and cruder. Losing Charlie, with his broads-and-booze jokes and his fraternal antagonism, could let Men take its comedy in a new direction.

If done right, surely a show like that could survive. And imagine the revenge factor if it thrives.

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

We've updated the Conversation Guidelines. Changes include a brief review of the moderation process and an explanation on how to use the "Report Abuse" button. Read more.

Michelle Malkin Amber Valletta Lacey Chabert Elisabeth Röhm Katharine Towne