!!!deleted!!! (64867252) — 9 years ago(January 26, 2017 08:53 AM)

To this day, Ashton Kutcher seems to get a lot of flack for ruining "Two and a Half Men." But the reality is that when the top-billed cast member has been with a long-running sitcom since day one, the magic is no longer there upon his/her demise. Charlotte Rae (Mrs. Garrett) on "The Facts of Life" is a good example. In hindsight, perhaps I'm contradicting myself, since Charlie Sheen's role reversal on "Spin City" did not appear to have that same affect. But generally speaking, this is why Woody Harrelson made the right decision to not continue "Cheers" without Ted Danson. A current cast member being promoted to top-billing may have a more positive outcome than bringing in a whole new character (thus "Cheers" asking Woody to fill Ted's shoes), but the ratings will never be the same. With that said, does Ashton Kutcher really deserve the blame? In my head, Charlie's replacement was Ted McGinley, because after "Married With Children," I can't help but to think of how much playboy-ish charisma and charm he would've added to "Two and a Half Men." On top of that, he's a triple threat:

• 7.25 years OLDER than Charlie Sheen (a far cry from Ashton)
• Still looks younger, thanks to not succumbing to drugs and substance abuse.
• Six-year stint on another raunchy sitcom catered to the male demographic.
  But despite all that, I'm positive the ratings still would've declined.