In hindsight, was it a mistake to continue the show w/o John Ritter

[TMC]

Before I start, I have heard the argument that John himself would've wanted the show to continue without him. In fact, Martin Spanjers (Rory) reiterated that suggestion on that recent Reelz channel special on John Ritter. And apparently, John's wife, Amy Yasbeck gave the producers and cast her blessing to continue. I've also heard the argument that having a family like the Hennesseys cope with the sudden loss of the family patriarch just reflects reality.

I however, think that we can all agree that 8 Simple Rules unfortunately jumped the shark big time with the sudden death of John Ritter/Paul Hennessey early into Season 2. The biggest hurdle is that the entire show's premise (a beleaguered, overprotective suburban dad trying to relate to his teenage daughters) was built around John's character. Once the initial grieving and coping process ended, where else could the show go if there's nothing else at its center?

James Garner and David Spade came onboard, I suppose that 8 Simple Rules kind of became a turn of the millennium version of Full House. Or if you want to go back further, the '80s NBC show Our House. Like James Garner on 8 Simple Rules, Our House involved a grandfather (in this case, Wilford Brimley) helping his daughter (or daughter-in-law on Our House) and her three kids (two girls and a boy) out after her husband dies.

There have been other shows that carried on after the parental figure died (either in real life or after the actor was abruptly let go). For example, Gimme a Break with Dolph Sweet, Good Times with John Amos, Valerie/The Hogan Family with Valerie Harper, etc. With 8 Simple Rules, I don't know if it had a strong enough of a supporting cast or strong enough writing to overcome the challenge of John Ritter's absence.

[Johnny be good!]

It carried on well, and Amy gave the blessing to keep the show going.