Even though Two-and-a-Half Men used to be the funniest show on TV (since definitely replaced by Lorre's other effort - with Bill Prady - The Big Bang Theory), the old re-runs with Charlie are infinitely more watchable that the ones with Walden. Not that Ashton Kutcher is bad but he just ain't Charlie and, after so long with Charlie, it is hard to adjust.
However, that is not why I was prompted to write this. What I would really like to know is, why couldn't Alan have been "killed off" instead of Charlie? That is, of course, a rhetorical question because we all know why Charlie was eliminated. But what I'm referring to is not the actor Jon Cryer but the character, Alan Harper. Actually I guess one has to admit that Jon is a great actor because he successfully makes Alan Harper the MOST loathsome character on TV or movies (and that includes Freddy Kruger and Adolf Hitler in The Rise of Evil!). For that I feel some sympathy for him (Jon, that is) because I'm pretty sure, if I ever met him, I could become an instant murderer. Maybe Charlie had some justification for putting up with his measly, sponging, whining, 0bnoxious brother simply because he WAS his brother, but why on earth would Walden? It just doesn't make sense and that tends to detract from the humour of it all.
Yes, I laugh - because the writers are brilliant - but, at the and of every episode, I am left totally frustrated because no one has killed Alan! And I don't watch TV to get frustrated! Mr Lorre (and his co- writers) obviously know what they are doing because their work has made them VERY rich but one has to wonder what it is about audiences that allows them to put up with Alans and Sheldons. Are we all masochists after all?
