Why the hell is Alan still so desperately poor? Yes, he's a cheapskate, but that's shown to be more out of necessity than any other reason. His business is still going strong, and that was enough to support him, Jake and Judith when they were married. And it can't be because of alimony, because Judith remarried and Kandi's got a well-paying job in Hollywood. So what's going on?
Actually Judith still makes Alan pay for stuff for Jake. She said in one episode "he needs the tutor, he likes the lessons and I'm not going to ask Herb to pay for them!" Why, I'd love to know too. I dunno about Kandi.
Kandi doesn't have to pay Alan alimony due to signing the divorce papers before she was paid for her role on Stiffs.
Alan no longer has to pay child support since Jake turned 18 (then joined the Army, thus providing a source of income for himself).
In some episode it's implied that he has money...but he just want to make his brother pay for him.
In an episode that takes place shortly after Kandi and Alan break up, Alan says that every cent Judith has is from him. So I guess he has a really high alimony because she doesn't work.
Alan doesn't have to pay Judith and Kandi alimony anymore, since Judith married Herb, who makes more money and Kandi is an actress, who also makes more money then he does.
Alan probably sees it as karma for Charlie treating him so badly throughout his life. Doesn't make it any less of a dick move on Alan's part.
It's a small, throwaway, harmless gag but I still need to say it, in one episode Jake says something along the lines of "I've been driving for years, Grand Theft Auto one, Grand Theft Auto two..". It's a funny gag yes, but if Jake is 15 in that episode, and Grand Theft Auto came out in 1997 Jake was maybe two or three? O.K he might have bought it later but it is Jake I'm talking about. If they got the name of the game right then why not say Vice City or San Andreas?
Jake is a few IQ points away from being mentally retarded. He probably thinks that GTA I and II are Vice City and San Andreas.
Also, This troper is just under a year older than Jake (well, the actor who plays him) and I was playing GTA I,II and London when they came out and I started playing around '98, when I was five-ish (oh an before anyone starts, I know: 5 year old playing GTA = parenting fail, but that's a different topic completely and I'm not screwed up in the head too much...)
Chuck Lorre knows nothing about video games. Just try watching the episode where Jake rents Final Fantasy X without facepalming at Lorre's lack of research. The music from FFII plays from the screen, for the most egregious mistake. The lack of research on Grand Theft Auto is unsurprising.
You guys are totally thinking too literally. Why does he have to had played them as soon as they came out? The simple solution is that he bought the games recently and played them all through. It's not like you can't find copies of old video games online.
The Moral Dissoance and Jerkassery with the main cast can be prett unfunny to me. It really bothers me that Evelyn knew that she accidentally gave Charlie one of her drugs instead of some pain reliever and din't bother to see if she could stop him from embarrsing his Judge Girlfriend and making her break up with him. Don't get me started on Judith and Kandi...
Well this show is an equal opportunity offender, both the male and female characters are regularly shown to be Jerk Asses, I can definitely understand you being upset though, Judith does often act like a total bitch to Alan for no reaosn other then to make his life a living hell, the thing with Evelyn and Linda(the judge) didn't really bother me so much though, as since Linda was planning to run for state-senator, she most likely would've broken up with him eventually anyways even if he hadn't taken the pill and embarrased her. She certainly didn't look thrilled whenever a random woman that happened to "know" Charlie would come up to him and say his name. With Charlie's sordid sexual history hanging over her, their relationship wouldn't have been too likely to last much longer even without Evelyn's "help"
Mia, specifically in season 3's episode Humiliation is a Visual Medium. Okay, so she insists that Charlie and she shouldn't have sex until a later point in their relationship. (1) While I understand that Mia is supposed to be a witty, confident woman who loves Charlie but, at the same time, doesn't take his crap, and wants to see whether Charlie is willing to sacrifice something for their relationship... even I - being female - can understand Charlie's point: What exactly does she sacrifice? Why is he supposed to be the only one who has to prove is sincerity? She admits herself that she doesn't need sex right now, so that doesn't count. And (2) What was her chain of argumentation anyway? "Usually Charlie is interested in sex and nothing else. I don't want to be another trophy, so he has to wait and let me see that he wants a relationship." What? Wouldn't them eventually having sex not make her an even bigger trophy for Charlie? If she wanted the truth, she should have slept with him. (Not on the first date, mind you, but they'd already dated for a while when that point came up.) If he'd still been interested in her even after he got into her pants - that would have been proof.
Mia never made a lot of sense, wanting to see if Charlie's willing to commit to the relationship is a valid idea, but the way she went about it was just ridiculous.
There's a two part episode (or at least I think it's in two parts) where Judith is getting married. In this one, Charlie seems to have a thing Dr. Herb's sister, Myra and they initially start dating. Then Judith starts complaining about this and tries to break them up. What bugs me is why should Judith care if Charlie and Myra are dating? I understand she's eventually going to be her sister-in-law and Charlie is well... Charlie but why should she give a damn? Doesn't she hate Myra? All they seemed to do is just bicker and argue at one another. Plus the only reason they seem to fight with one another is because Myra stands up for her brother and won't allow him to be a doormat.
Why does Charlie's friends and family push the Charlie/Rose pairing so much? She's proven to be manipulative, psychotic, and clingy. Yet when Charlie's dating a woman and Rose comes into town, all the characters lament that Rose was the only woman who ever loved Charlie and now she's gone, making Charlie break up with his current date to run off with his stalker. Do they seriously believe pairing a man with his stalker's a good idea, or are they such jerkasses that they would suggest the idea just to screw with him?
To be fair, he deserves that for being such a jerk to Alan and most of the women he's dated.
Really now people?! Ashton Kutcher will replace Charlie? Did I see a shark jump there?
I thought the Shark had already been jumped long ago
To be fair they've actually gone out of their way to make sure Walden Schmidt is nothing like Charlie, including treating Alan like a human being instead of acting like he'd be happy if Alan moved to a toxic waste dump as long as he was out of the house.
He wasn't dirt poor at this point, he only became that way because of his crippling alimony and child support payments, so he could have sued, since he also hired another lawyer (plus, how do you think he paid for her in the first place). He should have reported her to the Bar Association of California and taken her to the cleaners. Although, she's shown to be an Amoral Attorney earlier in the episode when she gets Alan to get Charlie to agree perjure himself by lying under oath to back up Alan's claim of buying his book collection before he met Judith (he didn't), though this does say more about him than her. That whole episode was non-sensical. The biggest one being that someone would get bored having sex with Heather Lockleal.
So will Charlie's death drive an already a little schitzy Rose completely off the brink? Especially since it may be her fault, if he dies while they are on their romantic getaway. She might go all Miss Havisham, walk around the beachhouse in a dirty, torn wedding dress....
It's implied that she killed him.
Rose seems to have already moved on, given that she's dated Walden.
Rose killing Charlie. What. Of all the hate and bile they throw at Charlie because of how much the producers hate Charlie Sheen, this was what bothered me the most.
You do realize that Rose is incredibly unstable and Charlie, knowing how cuckoo she is not only proposed to her, but then cheated on her afterwords, and was stupid enough to let her take him where she could throw him in front a of a train, presumibly secluded, and given how he probably was thinking he was about to have sex knowing his character, it's not out of character at all.
But Rose was never a murderess, and I highly doubt Charlie would cheat on her. The entire episode reeked of bitterness to Charlie's actor.
Whaddaya expect? Imagine you're a staff writer for a hit TV series, you've got the last four scripts in the can, and you're ready to call it quits for the summer break. Then the lead actor (who had troubles to begin with) gets tanked on coke, makes a very public ass of himself, and gets fired. You're told they have to cut the season short...so you dump over 160 pages of script, waste a lot of man-hours, yards of pretty good jokes, late night skull-sessions, and heaping pots of black coffee, and now you're trying to wrap up a planned six-ep arc in six minutes by basically pulling a miracle out of your proverbial ass, all because some overpaid pretty-boy blows his cork...who could blame them? Rose is cracked, and Charlie's not too bright. They worked well with what they were given. Now I wonder if Evelyn will pursue the matter further, or is she too afraid her own cupboard of skeletons might get to rattling? Does anyone really buy the "fish in a drawer" story completely?
I may be behind on something here, but why isn't this the first thing CBS airs on Monday nights? Given that it's their biggest Monday show, why do they air less popular shows first (like How I Met Your Mother)? I mean sure, HIMYM doesn't desperately need a lead-in like this, but still...
1. it has more 'mature' content so moving it to the family hour might rub people the wrong way HIMYM isn't nearly as obvious w/ their dirty jokes 2. it debuted in its current time slot IIRC, if it ain't broke don't fix it and if it is, moving it might call attention to the damage 3. as the biggest show, in your words, in the middle of the schedule it can help 2 shows — the show behind it has all its audience in place and only has to retain so many of them if 2.5 has X million viewers, as long as the next show on keeps 80% the retention rate gives them a pass even if they technically lose their time slot...—but also with a strong anchor at the front like HIMYM the show in between it and 2.5 gets a bump too as fans finish HIMYM and its now half past, they think well everything else is half over, and I'm going to turn it back to CBS for 2.5, I'll just leave it here and watch the show in the middle... — too some extent this also happens with the show between 2.5 and Hawaii 5-0 as well, but 5-0 being a drama: the mood whiplash from dead hooker jokes to dead hookers might send people to bed early or to another network
I know this point is sort of redundant now, but something bugged the hell out of me in Season 8 - Charlie continually tells Alan to move out, even rejoicing when Alan finally does for one episode... WHY DOESN'T HE JUST TELL HIM TO LEAVE? Charlie's already the World's Biggest Jerk Ass, and it's been shown repeatedly that Alan is no longer unable to financially support himself, he's just sponging off Charlie.
He's told him to leave before. It didn't work, and Charlie is the sort of drunk who, if he discovers after the fact that Alan ignored his order to leave, will (the vast majority of times) worry about enforcing it "later".
Charlie secretly loved having Alan and Jake there, but he'd never admit it.
Didn't Cinnamon's Buns star someone other than Lindsey during the Charlie series, when the focal point of an episode was a character having been discovered to have once starred in it?
No. The previous time it came up was when Lindsey was living at Charlie's after Alan burned down her house.»
How can Walden and his wife be high school sweethearts if Walden skipped high school?
Without having any idea about it, I would assume that for Walden, MIT was high school. Walden's wife could very well be older than him, if they had met at MIT, and she didn't skip any grades.
Because they firsr met when they would have been in High School; or they were high school sweethearts to her?
This has probably been adressed somewhere else, but I got to ask: How come neither Molly Ringwald or James Spader have ever guest starred on the show?
How come Judy Greer, who already played Myra in season 6, was cast again as Bridget? Nobody noticed the two unrelated women look extremely alike?
The actress playing Chelsea had already appeared twice before, both times as a different woman.
Jenna Elfman was Frankie in a two-part Season 1 episode, and Dharma in Season 9. Kandi was "Bubbles" and "Kimber". Apparently we're just not expected to notice.
"Bubbles" and "Kimber" were the same person. But, did her name ever get mentioned? Because she seemed just as dumb as Kandi (she couldn't turn off the shower because it had to many knobs, and wouldn't let Alan move her car so it wouldn't block their neighbour's driveway because she doesn't let strange men drive her car) and "Bubbles" was a joke by Alan; Charlies said "I'm blowing bubbles" and Alan, overhearing this, says "I don't care what her name is". I don't think they actually say the name Kimber in that episode. I think April Bowbly is just billed that way in the credits. So, since she dated Charlie before meeting Alan, "Kimber" could be Kandi.
It's probably just cheaper and less time consuming to reuse actors and actresses then hiring new ones.
It's probably not, actually. An actor is not paid less just because they've appeared on a show before, especially if they appeared in a different role. If anything, they're paid more, or the same. And it would be less time-consuming for the show to just rehire former actors instead of holding auditions for new ones... except that, due to the large number of celebrity/well-known actors cast in guest roles the show rarely auditions for guest characters to start with. Contacting a celebrity and contacting a former guest star is pretty much the same amount of effort.
So why does Alan make such a big deal about Jake having two girls in his room who he might have slept with but denied it to Charlie, Alan and Berta?
Because Alan's never had a threesome and if he can't have one, he doesn't think Jake should have one.
Zoe's daughter, Ava, has an English accent in season 9. She has an American accent in season 10. Why, why, WHY.
Children tend to lose their natural accent quicker than their parents, like how children also tend to pick up another language if they move to another country more easily than their parents. I know an American-British family where the parents have kept their accents but their children have an English accent with an American twinge.
I understand that the show has multiple writers and sometimes it can be hard to keep characterization consistent, but the whole point of season 9 and 10, basically, is Walden and Alan's friendship. So why is it that every other episode they seem to hate each other?
Because Alan's a selfish Jerkass who sponges off of anyone and everyone he can sponge off of...
They're Vitriolic Best Buds, and because Alan's habits come off as disgusting to Walden, but they know they can still count on each other.
Why does Zoey just leave Walden? There's never given any reason beyond that suddenly some random guy "let's call him Dick" appears. Is that really all it takes for her to leave him after their relationship was established in the previous season?
What happened to the show's humour? In the first few season, it was witty, snarky and intelligent. Then, mid-way through the series, it became "What can we say on prime time television and how far can we push it?" So, what happened?
How has Jake not realized that his family treat him like crap and have no respect for him? Even with his limited intelligence, he should be able to realize that by now.
Assuming the show lasts long enough to cover his full enlistment contract, Jake may come to that realization after living on his own around more well-adjusted people, and then give Alan, Judith, and Evelyn a piece of his mind. Let's face it—as rotten a role model as Charlie was, he was still the only adult figure in Jake's life who actually seemed to like him and give a damn about him. Charlie even said on more than one occasion he had no issue with taking Jake in—it's Alan that he wanted rid of!
Why does Alan act like Charlie's promiscuity is such a horrible thing? Granted, Charlie's methods and how he tosses women aside after he's done with them isn't all that nice, but why does Alan feel the need to constantly insult how Charlie chooses to live his life in his own house?
Because A) he's disgusted by the attitude his own brother (who, let's not forget, he lives with) has toward women, B) in the earlier seasons when he still had hope for his son, Charlie was a drug addiction short of being the worst possible influence, and C) plain ol' jealousy.
Let's also not forget that Charlie is letting Alan live in his house rent free. And, at times, Alan is no better than Charlie when it comes to women. On top of this, even when Charlie started charging Alan rent, Alan only occaisionally pays, despite having a reasonably successful chiropractic clinic.
So in Season 4, when Alan has insomnia, it turns out that it's because he's angry that Charlie has never suffered for having the "audacity" to be promiscuous. And somehow this is portrayed as a good thing. Granted, Charlie isn't the nicest guy and was never the best brother, but he still lets Alan and Jake live at his house rent free (At the time) and pays for virtually everything they need to survive. How the hell does Alan justify wanting the brother who is pretty much the only reason he's still alive to suffer because he lives a lifestyle he has every right to live if he chooses to?
Its simple, Alan is a "false nice guy", the kind who has spent his whole life living by an arbitrary morality, and is now mad that he hasnt reaped the rewards he thinks he deserves for it. Yes, life hasnt treated him all that well, but a lot of that is because Alan is a spineless doormat, and is incredibly resentful against his brother, who lived in hedonistic revelry that Alan secretly wanted himself, but didnt allow himself to go for, because he thought that the universe would automatically reward him for his passive agressive nice guy act. Now he clings to it, because admitting to himself that the majority of his setbacks is from his own faults is too painful.
Why would Herb want to get back with Judith? She treats him like crap and has no respect for him and treated him like a dog covered in filth that just rolled all over freshly cleaned carpet.
In the season eight episode "A Bottle of Wine and a Jackhammer" in which Lyndsey asks Alan to move in with her, Alan initially refuses to do so, claiming that he is comfortable living with Charlie and that Charlie's house is home to him. It's only when he learns that Judith lives across the street from Lyndsey that Alan agrees to move in, knowing it will piss Judith off. How can Alan possibly say that he's "comfortable" living at Charlie's house when Charlie and Berta—and to a lesser extent Jake—constantly treat him like dirt? Not to mention the fact that Alan is perpetually disgusted at Charlie's lifestyle (no doubt due to jealousy)? You would think that Alan would jump at the chance to be living with someone who actually treats him with respect.
Because Alan would rather be a second class citizen in paradise, aka Charlie's house. He only agrees to live with Lyndsey because it'll piss off Judith, otherwise he wouldn't have bothered.
In the episode with Heather Locklear as Alan's lawyer, why does she ask him if Alan bought his books before or after he and Judith got married? If Alan bought all those books himself—which I'm assuming he did—then they are all his and Judith cannot legally take them away.