Why is Two and a Half Men considered a bad show?

[TMC]

http://www.411mania.com/movies/columns/290674

Q: Two questions here, both involving TV:
1) Why is Two and a half men considered to be a bad show? I watched it and thought it was very good. Not a masterpiece of comedy but certainly not terrible. I can understand why people hate the Ashton Kutcher era but the first eight seasons were awesome. Jon Cryer won a much deserved Emmy over Louie CK and I love Louie.

2) Same goes for the current Simpsons. While its not as good as it was in the first decade, its better than what people put it out to be. What makes The Simpsons so bad now? If you were the new show runner, what would you do to change it?
Georgeharrisbr36

A: Two and a Half Men is an American television sitcom starring Charlie Sheen, Jon Cryer, and Angus T. Jones. The show was originally about a hedonistic jingle writer, Charlie Harper; his uptight brother, Alan; and Alan's growing son, Jake. After Alan divorces, he moves with his son to share Charlie's beach-front Malibu house and complicate Charlie's free-wheeling life.

1) What's funny about the reputation of Two and a Half Men is how immensely popular it was during Sheen's run (not that it isn't popular now), yet it simultaneously inspired so much outspoken hatred from the public. And when Kutcher came aboard, everyone shouted that they missed Charlie Sheen. I don't get it. I didn't mind the series when Sheen was on. He was playing a character that is not too far removed from his real personality and it was a fine comedic waste of time for 22 minutes. I don't watch it with Ashton Kutcher because quite frankly I don't find him funny, nor do I think he's a very good actor. That being said, there are a group of people that are the opposite of shy when it comes to bashing sitcoms. These types of shows are not nearly as popular as they were in the 90's. Yes, there are some (like The Big Bang Theory) that thrive, but we live in changing times and people expect and want different traits/ideas from a comedy show now. As long as I've discussed sitcoms with friends, etc, the #1 complaint is that certain folks hate the predictability and routine. I understand this argument if you don't watch any of them, but it's all based on whether or not you find the material funny.

I loved Home Improvement, for example. Every episode involved Tim screwing up, but I didn't watch it for the storyline. I watched it for the dependability of Tim Allen's humor. Viewers trust sitcoms because they deliver what they want. Sometimes that's a good thing, but not always obviously. Other answers to this vary. Many people don't like Charlie Sheen. I've read some articles that mention how unlikable the characters are, specifically the women. Angus T. Jones, who stars in the show, famously posted a video asking fans to stop watching because of how immoral and detestable it is. Perhaps the subject matter of watching a rich guy have sex with random females doesn't appeal to everyone. On the other hand, it does have its defenders. Some people say it shows what men truly think and like, citing that most sitcoms use men as schmucks who always make mistakes. I can't quite grasp why certain haters spend so much time complaining about it, such as creating Facebook pages, long blogs, and so forth. The fact is, comedy is very subjective, what works for one won't for another. And we'll have to agree to disagree about Cryer winning the Emmy. Louie C.K. deserved that in my book.

2) As for The Simpsons, the reasons I write about do not reflect my own opinion because I don't watch the show anymore. Early on, I would tune in for The Simpsons on occasion, but not regularly. It has never been as funny to me as it was to others. I prefer Futurama (another Matt Groening show). I don't say that to be different or hip, I just like the premise and characters more. Getting back to the question, the general consensus (and I agree) is that The Simpsons is simply running out of ideas. To maintain the same level of creativity and quality for 24 straight seasons is no easy task. But people must keep watching so it continues to be on the air. I'm definitely in the camp of those who feel that giving shows an infinite run is commonly a bad idea. 30 Rock was around for 7 seasons and went away. Could it have stayed? Probably, but remember the saying "too much of a good thing." The danger of continuing just because you can is that if the quality is not consistent, the reputation overall can be tarnished. That is what The Simpsons faces now. They should have quit while they were ahead. When you are around for that long, it gets to a point where inevitably the stories and jokes will be recycled and stale, and with this particular show fans demand constant originality. That is not a reality unfortunately. As far as smaller reasons go, I read a few people who think the downward spiral began when Phil Hartman died because he voiced several characters. Others say it was when David X. Cohen stopped writing for the series. But it also goes back to the age old moan that "things ain't what they used to be." Viewers complain more about Family Guy and South Park the longer they stick around as well. They are not immune to these criticisms. Things are never as good as they once were. But you know what? The Simpsons may have peaked a long ago and is now living on borrowed time.

Read more at http://www.411mania.com/movies/colum...78TmHHeY81W.99

[Adamantium]

I never thought the show was funny. I'm glad to see that even though it was such a high rated show, I'm not alone in hating it.

[robyrob]

Two and a Half Men is a good show for what it is - it takes the low road and makes a lot of dirty and suggestive jokes, and it does it well.

some people don't like the subject matter, or hate it because it always goes to the worst place in every joke, but that's exactly what it is trying to do; it is not supposed to appeal to everybody and they are probably hoping that it does offend some people.


the Simpsons I think some people just have a lot of hate for it just because it has been on for so long and they are unfairly comparing it to other current shows. I have watched the show since the very beginning and I was a rabid fan of Life In Hell before that; the show has been consistently good most of the way with only a few bad spots here and there. They have had the best voice cast with dozens of great characters, they have had some great writers and added fresh new writers pretty consistently, they've had hundreds of amazing guest stars, and for a show with that many episodes, they have pretty consistently managed to come up with new and original stories (maybe not all of them were great, but more of them have been ripped off by other shows than they've had actual bad episodes).

[James28]

Originally Posted by robyrob

the Simpsons I think some people just have a lot of hate for it just because it has been on for so long and they are unfairly comparing it to other current shows. I have watched the show since the very beginning and I was a rabid fan of Life In Hell before that; the show has been consistently good most of the way with only a few bad spots here and there. They have had the best voice cast with dozens of great characters, they have had some great writers and added fresh new writers pretty consistently, they've had hundreds of amazing guest stars, and for a show with that many episodes, they have pretty consistently managed to come up with new and original stories (maybe not all of them were great, but more of them have been ripped off by other shows than they've had actual bad episodes).

One "unfair" comprison I'm gonna make is that several other great TV shows like Everybody Loves Raymond, Friends, Frasier, Will & Grace, Beverly Hills 90210, and even ER and The Office get series finale episodes, while The Simpsons has yet to have a proper wrap-up episode of its own.

Another "unfair" comparison is that The Simpsons's run can only be matched by a serialized TV show that has to come up with fresh story arcs as much as it can, despite The Simpsons itself not being serialized or not having story arcs (Yes, I said "arcs".)

[EmoJoe]

I honestly think it's the worst show to ever be a big hit...it's dirty, depressing, and lazy. Raunchy humor has its place when it's done well (like Married with Children at its best or even, more recently, shows like Don't Trust the B) but Two and a Half Men just puts together the least thoughtful "dirty" jokes they possibly can and gets by almost completely on shock value. The characters are barely even characters, they're just there to deliver some gross lines and occasionally get exploited for laughs. It's pretty deplorable. Even a show like The Big Bang Theory - which I'm no fan of and gets its fair share of hatred as well - at least manages to put together some decently drawn out characters and puts some effort into making them seem likable and real. Two and a Half Men just has no interest in even basic characterization or, really, anything besides 8th grade level dick jokes.

[lucy&vivfan]

I think it can be summed up like this. "Two and a Half Men" is a comedy that appeals to MALES. In the history of television, most sitcoms appeal to FEMALES or FAMILIES. "Married With Children" was another sitcom that had a largely male audience. "Children" was a raunchy, sexist show that depicted a highly-dysfunctional family. It was not by any means a great show, but ran for 11 years. Mainly because advertisers salivated over a show that could be used to reach men via advertising.

I believe it is the same with "Two And A Half Men". Have some girls running around in bikinis, the lead character that hops in bed with different woman, throw in some raunchy sex jokes and you have a guaranteed male audience and a show that runs over a decade.

[EmoJoe]

Originally Posted by lucy&vivfan

I think it can be summed up like this. "Two and a Half Men" is a comedy that appeals to MALES. In the history of television, most sitcoms appeal to FEMALES or FAMILIES. "Married With Children" was another sitcom that had a largely male audience. "Children" was a raunchy, sexist show that depicted a highly-dysfunctional family. It was not by any means a great show, but ran for 11 years. Mainly because advertisers salivated over a show that could be used to reach men via advertising.

I believe it is the same with "Two And A Half Men". Have some girls running around in bikinis, the lead character that hops in bed with different woman, throw in some raunchy sex jokes and you have a guaranteed male audience and a show that runs over a decade.

This is completely untrue. I'm a male, and I hate the show. I know many other guys that feel the same way. Comedies like Community and 30 Rock skew mostly male, and they aren't anything like Two and a Half Men.

The show desperately panders to males by having girls run around in bikinis and whatnot...but that's different than just being a show that appeals to more males than females.

[lucy&vivfan]

You misunderstood my post. I am stating the way network executives and advertisers feel.

[EmoJoe]

Oh! Then I can see your point. I think there are other attempts to appeal to males than what 2.5 Men does, but I do agree a lot of the show is a desperate attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator type of man.

As for Married with Children, I think that show was a little bit better than shows like 2.5 Men because part of its schtick was a criticism of the family sitcom that was popular at the time...so at least its raunchiness had a purpose. But I do think it influenced a lot of really, really bad shows.

[liane49]

Originally Posted by James28

One "unfair" comprison I'm gonna make is that several other great TV shows like Everybody Loves Raymond, Friends, Frasier, Will & Grace, Beverly Hills 90210, and even ER and The Office get series finale episodes, while The Simpsons has yet to have a proper wrap-up episode of its own.

Another "unfair" comparison is that The Simpsons's run can only be matched by a serialized TV show that has to come up with fresh story arcs as much as it can, despite The Simpsons itself not being serialized or not having story arcs (Yes, I said "arcs".)

I thought the show was more funny when Jake and Charlies would act together and Charlie and his mother.

[Yong Fang]

I never watched this show because Charlie Sheen in real life is an a..hole. A woman beating, drug using, drunk, narcissistic a..hole. A stupid a..hole who dropped out of high school. If it wasn't for daddy, he couldn't get a job at a McDonalds. Yes, he does have some acting skills, I grant that. But his personality turned me off from even trying the show.

After Sheen left, I never saw it because I do not know the characters.

[visaman666]

Originally Posted by James28

arcs (Yes, I said "arcs".)

mattress dancing (Yes, I said "mattress dancing".)

[Samme]

From what I've seen -- mostly a few Sheen episodes -- it's horrible. Set-up, joke, set-up, joke...that's terrible writing. The kid was a joke machine, just doing snappers to everything that was said to him. Sheen would just stand there, stare, smirk, and say a dirty comeback to everything that was said to him. The opening song of "Men" was well done and catchy, but the only soundtrack I heard, and they used it over and over as an audio snapper to end every scene. They do have some damn good looking women on the show, who seemed to do okay with their acting, but it just wasn't worth watching the other stuff to see them. And the kid grew so ugly he's unpleasant to even look at, besides being a terrible actor. Kutcher is a decent actor, but the show has too much other stuff going against it. And, of course, even with all these terrible faults, it's a tremendous hit. And to top it off, Sheen was/is a crackhead and supporting the show was too forgiving of such insane behavior.

It's hard to believe that the Chuck Lorre who shows so little talent with this show is the same guy who does Big Bang Theory, because I think that's as good a show as this is bad.

[liane49]

Originally Posted by lucy&vivfan

You misunderstood my post. I am stating the way network executives and advertisers feel.

After all it is just a sit com. Even if Walldon doesn't toatly hate Alan he does hate him living in his house and doesn't really do anything to get him out. And Charlie never did eaither. And I know Lindsay may like Alan for whatever reason, I don't think any girl like that would put up with an out of work boyfriend. And how does Alan have any "walking" around money if he never works? Who buys his food or puts gas in his car? Does Lindsay pay for everything when they go out, not that they go out much.

[liane60]

Originally Posted by TMC

http://www.411mania.com/movies/columns/290674



Read more at http://www.411mania.com/movies/colum...78TmHHeY81W.99

Good or bad( I think it's great) it's making Chuck Lorrie a lot of money.