… replace Charlie?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13397308
Is it a good idea to replace the star of the show? Or should they just let the show die? Sometimes it can work with the likes of Dr Who, but this was designed into the scripts, no?
I think the new guy will always have a tough job filling the vacant space.
Looking at some of the later episodes, the scripts also seem to be getting a bit tired. Time to call it a day?

I liked the show and will no doubt watch it again. It is a risk but they will be getting a shed of cash so they have little to lose.

Personally I think they should have drawn a line under it

Am not an avid viewer but seems to me that a most of the humour in the one liners uses Senor Sheen’s real life and personality as a crutch for irony or to make it tongue in cheek believable.

Just can’t see it working the same with anyone else, then again Doctor Who is a good example of where you can’t see it being the same and while it never is the new guy makes it watchable (or not) with the freedom to express his own personality.

Not sure they picked the right replacement, but have never seen him in anything. So, if they just have this new guy reading the same script it will bomb, if they introduce a new character might work, depends if he’s funny.

Replacing one of the main characters in ‘Game On’ didn’t really work and adding Poochy to the Itchy & Scratchy show failed miserably. Of course Two & a Half Men isn’t in the same league as either but my guess is the show will fade away over one or two series.

+1 Game On failed without Ben Chaplin.

I thought Sheen’s character was surplus to requirements in the show.. replacing him with a roll of gaffer tape would get more laughs I think..

or perhaps Cheech Marin..

They kept “8 Simple Rules…” going for two whole seasons after the lead actor died suddenly. Stranger things have happened. Where would “Men Behaving Badly” be with Harry Enfield?