PDA

View Full Version : Movies and TV Charlie Sheen Fired!


Pages : [1] 2

BigRichard
03-07-2011, 02:52 PM
I thought this deserved its own thread...

http://www.tmz.com/2011/03/07/charlie-sheen-two-and-a-half-men-tv-fired-letter-warner-bros-television/

Warner Bros. issued the following statement: "After careful consideration, Warner Bros. Television has terminated Charlie Sheen's services on 'Two and a Half Men,' effective immediately."

The statement does not say if the show will go back into production.

UPDATE: A source at Warner Bros. says no decision has been made on whether the show will come back.

WebGem
03-07-2011, 02:54 PM
So they made a show about Charlie Sheen and then fired Charlie Sheen for being Charlie Sheen?

Pants
03-07-2011, 02:54 PM
YOU DO NOT PISS THE JEWS OFF AND GET AWAY WITH IT, CHARLIE!!111

BigMeatballDave
03-07-2011, 02:55 PM
I guess the show is done.

Donger
03-07-2011, 02:55 PM
Duh, winning.

Stewie
03-07-2011, 02:55 PM
Warner Bros. fires Charlie Sheen from 'Men'

Studio sends letter informing actor of his termination

By Cynthia Littleton (http://www.variety.com/biography/1035)
http://images1.variety.com/graphics/photos/_storypics/sheen_210.jpgSheen




Charlie Sheen's employment on "Two and a Half Men" has been formally terminated by Warner Bros.

The studio sent the actor a letter today informing him of the termination. Sheen had another season to go on his contract with the studio for the CBS laffer, which was shut down for the rest of this season by the studio and network on Feb. 24 because of Sheen's increasingly erratic behavior and hard-partying lifestyle.

Sheen had been promising to take legal action against the studio ever since Warner Bros. TV and CBS made the decision to shutter "Men."


Reps for the studio said no final decision has been made about the fate of the "Men" on CBS next season, other than the fact that Sheen will not be on the series.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 02:56 PM
Expect a HUGE lawsuit from the Sheen camp very soon.

Detoxing
03-07-2011, 02:56 PM
So they made a show about Charlie Sheen and then fired Charlie Sheen for being Charlie Sheen?

They shoulda just started writing cocaine binges into the story. Would've made for better ratings too.

DJ's left nut
03-07-2011, 02:56 PM
That has to kill the show, doesn't it?

Surely they won't try to bring it back with Stamos. I've heard Rob Lowe as a darkhorse candidate (awesome idea, BTW), but I can't see how they could manage it within the storyline unless they flat out ignore it.

Seems pretty dumb to me.

Radar Chief
03-07-2011, 02:57 PM
So they made a show about Charlie Sheen and then fired Charlie Sheen for being Charlie Sheen?

Is that show about Charlie Sheen? No, really, I donít know, Iíve never wasted a moment of my life watching it.

CrazyPhuD
03-07-2011, 02:57 PM
WOoo hooo Vance and Coy duke!

Chocolate Hog
03-07-2011, 02:57 PM
That #winning & tigerblood shit was getting old anyway.

BigMeatballDave
03-07-2011, 02:59 PM
Is that show about Charlie Sheen? No, really, I donít know, Iíve never wasted a moment of my life watching it.Loosely based.

HemiEd
03-07-2011, 03:00 PM
They shoulda just started writing cocaine binges into the story. Would've made for better ratings too.

Not sure how the ratings could get any better, it was number one last time I checked.

It is a shame when egos get in the way, nobody won this one, especially the viewers.

Detoxing
03-07-2011, 03:00 PM
That has to kill the show, doesn't it?

Surely they won't try to bring it back with Stamos. I've heard Rob Lowe as a darkhorse candidate (awesome idea, BTW), but I can't see how they could manage it within the storyline unless they flat out ignore it.

Seems pretty dumb to me.

They have to kill the show.

Faint images of "That 70's Show" after Topher Grace left still run through my head. That show became garbage.

Dont do that to another classic.

dirk digler
03-07-2011, 03:01 PM
Duh, winning.

LMAO

Rain Man
03-07-2011, 03:01 PM
They should have notified him via that little card the producer puts up at the end.


I've only seen this show a couple of times, and I actually thought it was pretty funny. Regardless of the show, though, you should never replace an actor with another actor who plays the same character. It never works unless maybe it's a twin like that whole Dick York/Dick Sargent thing. (That had to be witchcraft, by the way.) They should have Charlie get sent to prison and then bring in someone else as a new character if they need to, and then Charlie can send letters back or something.

Otter
03-07-2011, 03:02 PM
Sorry to sound like a money grubbing Hollywood Exec but I would have at least gotten 3 more shows aired. Those episodes would have rivaled the Super Bowl for viewers.

Donger
03-07-2011, 03:02 PM
Expect a HUGE lawsuit from the Sheen camp very soon.

What are they going to claim, breach of contract?

Radar Chief
03-07-2011, 03:03 PM
Loosely based.

Shouldn't surprise me, the advertisements make it look like the show is about which chick Charlie is bedding that week. Which is why Iíve never had much interest.

Fruit Ninja
03-07-2011, 03:04 PM
They have to kill the show.

Faint images of "That 70's Show" after Topher Grace left still run through my head. That show became garbage.

Dont do that to another classic.

Yep, its done. No way it survives. Charlie made that show. It sure in the fuck wasnt Alan or the Kid.

Thig Lyfe
03-07-2011, 03:04 PM
That has to kill the show, doesn't it?

Surely they won't try to bring it back with Stamos. I've heard Rob Lowe as a darkhorse candidate (awesome idea, BTW), but I can't see how they could manage it within the storyline unless they flat out ignore it.

Seems pretty dumb to me.

Rob Lowe is too busy being on a great show that isn't a huge piece of shit.

Thig Lyfe
03-07-2011, 03:08 PM
They have to kill the show.

Faint images of "That 70's Show" after Topher Grace left still run through my head. That show became garbage.

Dont do that to another classic.

http://i41.tinypic.com/33mc46h.jpg

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 03:12 PM
What are they going to claim, breach of contract?

Yeah, absolutely. He has a contract for 32 more episodes at $1.8 million per. They're obligated to pay it.

And they'd better negotiate a settlement soon or CBS could see their ratings plummet. The dude was more than 2 million Twitter followers and if they thought he was on a media binge before, he'll be everywhere following his firing.

He could go on Howard tomorrow and ask for all of his listeners to boycott CBS. And I'm sure than more than half would join in.

CBS has a major problem on their hands, IMO. This was a stupid, stupid decision.

ClevelandBronco
03-07-2011, 03:14 PM
If Charlie can survive the money he already has and the other money he's getting, this may help save what's left of his pitifully desperate life. (Or is it a desperately pitiful life? I'm of two minds.)

Donger
03-07-2011, 03:15 PM
Yeah, absolutely. He has a contract for 32 more episodes at $1.8 million per. They're obligated to pay it.

And they'd better negotiate a settlement soon or CBS could see their ratings plummet. The dude was more than 2 million Twitter followers and if they thought he was on a media binge before, he'll be everywhere following his firing.

Surely the contract had conditions for justifiable termination within, no?

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 03:15 PM
"This is very good news. They continue to be in breach, like so many whales. It is a big day of gladness at the Sober Valley Lodge because now I can take all of their bazillions, never have to look at whatshiscock again and I never have to put on those silly shirts for as long as this warlock exists in the terrestrial dimension."

http://www.tmz.com/2011/03/07/charlie-sheen-fired-two-and-a-half-men-chuck-lorre-warnerbros-cbs/

alnorth
03-07-2011, 03:16 PM
Yeah, absolutely. He has a contract for 32 more episodes at $1.8 million per. They're obligated to pay it.

And they'd better negotiate a settlement soon or CBS could see their ratings plummet. The dude was more than 2 million Twitter followers and if they thought he was on a media binge before, he'll be everywhere following his firing.

He could go on Howard tomorrow and ask for all of his listeners to boycott CBS. And I'm sure than more than half would join in.

CBS has a major problem on their hands, IMO. This was a stupid, stupid decision.

This isn't major league baseball. Guaranteed contracts are the exception, not the rule. He gets paid what is owed to him, unless the execs decide to cancel. If there isn't any kind of buyout clause, or some language saying the rest of this season becomes guaranteed after episode#X is filmed, he gets squat.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-07-2011, 03:16 PM
Warner Bros clearly needs to #planbetter. They won't even see the #fastball coming.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 03:17 PM
Surely the contract had conditions for justifiable termination within, no?

I seriously doubt it. And if so, they certainly had no ground considering he didn't miss any scheduled tapings.

This is all about calling out Chuck Lorre.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 03:18 PM
This isn't major league baseball. Guaranteed contracts are the exception, not the rule. He gets paid what is owed to him, unless the execs decide to cancel. If there isn't any kind of buyout clause, or some language saying the rest of this season becomes guaranteed after episode#X is filmed, he gets squat.

LMAO

Bullshit.

LMAO

You mean like Conan O'Brien?

You clearly have no idea how this town operates so if I were you, I'd shut the hell up.

alnorth
03-07-2011, 03:18 PM
Surely the contract had conditions for justifiable termination within, no?

If all else fails, I'd have to think that there's some kind of morality or drug abuse clause somewhere. CBS asked him to go to rehab, and he basically refused to go to any real meaningful facility. You can't do in-home rehab for a week or two.

Donger
03-07-2011, 03:18 PM
I seriously doubt it. And if so, they certainly had no ground considering he didn't miss any scheduled tapings.

This is all about calling out Chuck Lorre.

Is Chuck Charlie's "boss/superior"?

tooge
03-07-2011, 03:18 PM
I didn't really watch it. For some reason, once I knew charlie was whacko, I just couldn't get into it

Donger
03-07-2011, 03:20 PM
I see that you think this is a stupid decision, Dane, and perhaps it is for fiscal reasons, but it's kind of refreshing to see them (maybe) putting some things ahead of the dollar signs.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 03:20 PM
Is Chuck Charlie's "boss/superior"?

He's the show's creator.

Furthermore, this is a program that's pulling in 15 million viewers in repeats. A show like "Mad Men", which is critically acclaimed barely pulls in a million per first run episode.

"Men" is a cash cow and I find it unreal that they canceled this show.

Bill Lundberg
03-07-2011, 03:21 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HIx4_t26AAs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xvrUinVe2B8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Donger
03-07-2011, 03:21 PM
He's the show's creator.

Furthermore, this is a program that's pulling in 15 million viewers in repeats. A show like "Mad Men", which is critically acclaimed barely pulls in a million per first run episode.

"Men" is a cash cow and I find it unreal that they canceled this show.

You stated that both sides would find peaceful resolution because of the money involved (being lost) was too great, right?

ClevelandBronco
03-07-2011, 03:21 PM
Is Chuck Charlie's "boss/superior"?

I think we can be almost certain that he's Charlie's superior. His boss? I have no idea.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 03:22 PM
I see that you think this is a stupid decision, Dane, and perhaps it is for fiscal reasons, but it's kind of refreshing to see them (maybe) putting some things ahead of the dollar signs.

No, that's not how it works, Dude.

Chuck Lorre has continously created hit shows for CBS. He's currently got Mike & Molly and The Big Bang Theory on CBS pulling in shit tons of dough.

If Chuck Lorre were a first timer or had no track record, Charlie would have won this battle.

I'll bet the farm that CBS and Warners thought they'd come out ahead by hitching their wagons to Lorre and not Sheen.

Donger
03-07-2011, 03:23 PM
No, that's not how it works, Dude.

Chuck Lorre has continously created hit shows for CBS. He's currently got Mike & Molly and The Big Bang Theory on CBS pulling in shit tons of dough.

If Chuck Lorre were a first timer or had no track record, Charlie would have won this battle.

I'll bet the farm that CBS and Warners thought they'd come out ahead by hitching their wagons to Lorre and not Sheen.

So, you are saying they didn't fire him because of what he's done?

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 03:23 PM
You stated that both sides would find peaceful resolution because of the money involved (being lost) was too great, right?

Yeah, that was my initial impression. I have no idea why they came to this resolution. I know several executives at WB and I hope to have the real scoop soon.

Predarat
03-07-2011, 03:23 PM
Maybe he can replace Michael Scott on The Office now.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 03:25 PM
So, you are saying they didn't fire him because of what he's done?

Outside of calling out Lorre, that's correct.

The ratings have steadily increased since the cancellation of this season. Even Les Moonves recently stated that they hoped he'd be back next year and "wished he would have worked this hard to promote the past 9 years".

This says to me that it was all about Lorre.

chiefsnorth
03-07-2011, 03:26 PM
I assumed this was all about promoting himself for the next thing.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 03:26 PM
According to Warner Brothers, they fired him for "cause". Sheen says he'll sue because they're in breach.

I think that Warners will have a tough time in court with "cause".

WV
03-07-2011, 03:27 PM
Charlie Sheen to star in show on Mark Cuban’s TV channel (http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2011/03/07/charlie-sheen-to-star-in-show-on-mark-cubans-tv-channel/)

Rick Chandler

Mar 7, 2011, 11:22 AM EST
1 Comment
cubansheen

Charlie Sheen has found a new home with Mark Cuban’s HDNet channel, although no details have been released so far. In fact, no one knows the format of the show, except perhaps Sheen himself. Personally, I’m hoping for a cooking show.

Cuban launched his channel in 2001 as the first national network to broadcast all of its programming in 1080i high-definition.

Cuban said Sunday a decision of whether to make it a reality show, a talk show or something else will be up to Sheen.

Cuban described Sheen as “somebody that everybody has a whole lot of interest in who is doing some interesting things, to say the least.

Other than that, I can’t say a whole lot about it.”

It’s only one of the ways that Sheen is preparing to cash in on his recent internet fame. Are you ready, for instance, for Charlie Sheen Quotes Ringtones for your Android phone?

Meanwhile, in Lake Buena Vista, Fla., at the Braves-Mets game

Donger
03-07-2011, 03:31 PM
According to Warner Brothers, they fired him for "cause". Sheen says he'll sue because they're in breach.

I think that Warners will have a tough time in court with "cause".

I wonder if one of the causes is publicly calling your employer flatulent buttheads?

tooge
03-07-2011, 03:32 PM
So whats Charlie weigh, 200lbs? I dunno, I could probably bench him 20 times or so

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 03:33 PM
I wonder if one of the causes is publicly calling your employer flatulent buttheads?

I seriously doubt that's enough "cause".

alnorth
03-07-2011, 03:36 PM
LMAO

Bullshit.

LMAO

You mean like Conan O'Brien?

You clearly have no idea how this town operates so if I were you, I'd shut the hell up.

First of all, you are incorrect in general, guaranteed contracts ARE the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of actors do not get paid when their show is cancelled.

That said, apparently Sheen was one of the very, very few actors who had a guaranteed contract. Fine. It is not "guaranteed no matter what the hell you do".

According to this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/business/media/01sheen.html), a lot of insiders think Sheen completely screwed himself with his anti-semitic rant against Lorre. Using hate speech against a show's creator is pretty much a dictionary definition of fired for cause.

If there is a settlement, it would probably be a small one to avoid the headache and bad press of a lawsuit, but I simply can not believe Sheen can use hate speech against his boss and still be owed his contract when he gets fired for it.

Stewie
03-07-2011, 03:36 PM
Charlie Sheen to star in show on Mark Cuban’s TV channel (http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2011/03/07/charlie-sheen-to-star-in-show-on-mark-cubans-tv-channel/)

Rick Chandler

Mar 7, 2011, 11:22 AM EST
1 Comment
cubansheen

Charlie Sheen has found a new home with Mark Cuban’s HDNet channel, although no details have been released so far. In fact, no one knows the format of the show, except perhaps Sheen himself. Personally, I’m hoping for a cooking show.

Cuban launched his channel in 2001 as the first national network to broadcast all of its programming in 1080i high-definition.

Cuban said Sunday a decision of whether to make it a reality show, a talk show or something else will be up to Sheen.

Cuban described Sheen as “somebody that everybody has a whole lot of interest in who is doing some interesting things, to say the least.

Other than that, I can’t say a whole lot about it.”

It’s only one of the ways that Sheen is preparing to cash in on his recent internet fame. Are you ready, for instance, for Charlie Sheen Quotes Ringtones for your Android phone?

Meanwhile, in Lake Buena Vista, Fla., at the Braves-Mets game

This was mentioned by Charlie. I think Cuban is trying to keep his no-holds-barred programming going. They already show Girls Gone Wild with nudity, and Art Mann (which sucks) where pretty much anything goes. It's on the HD side of DirecTV but it's not a premium (pay) channel.

BigMeatballDave
03-07-2011, 03:36 PM
I seriously doubt that's enough "cause".Trashing the show could be.

Radar Chief
03-07-2011, 03:37 PM
So whats Charlie weigh, 200lbs? I dunno, I could probably bench him 20 times or so

Heh, I was going to guess about 120 lbs. Last I saw heís looking pretty scrawny and ate up.

alnorth
03-07-2011, 03:37 PM
According to Warner Brothers, they fired him for "cause". Sheen says he'll sue because they're in breach.

I think that Warners will have a tough time in court with "cause".

He publicly used hate speech in a high-profile angry rant against his boss.

How is that not fired for cause?

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 03:39 PM
First of all, you are incorrect in general, guaranteed contracts ARE the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of actors do not get paid when their show is cancelled.

And that's why Letterman was paid after he was fired at NBC? Conan? Bill Maher?

Seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. We're not talking about a supporting actor but a Top Line Movie Star.

dirk digler
03-07-2011, 03:40 PM
Dane in your Hollywood experience what would be considered cause to fire somebody like Sheen?

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 03:41 PM
He publicly used hate speech in a high-profile angry rant against his boss.

How is that not fired for cause?

First off, he wasn't charge with an offense. Secondly, calling Chuck Lorre by his Jewish name can be easily justified since it's HIS NAME.

Brock
03-07-2011, 03:44 PM
Hate speech, in the legal sense? I doubt it.

Donger
03-07-2011, 03:44 PM
Aren't there two very separate and distinct events here?

1) The rest of the show's season being canceled (but Sheen not being fired).

2) Sheen being fired?

If so, it seems clear that the first had to do with him calling out Lorre. And, the second seems to caused by Sheen's continuing and escalating rants.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 03:45 PM
Dane in your Hollywood experience what would be considered cause to fire somebody like Sheen?

When I was at Paramount, we had to give three written notices in order to fire ANYONE, whether it was an actor, actress, janitor, secretary, etc.

The first was a warning. The was a notice that if said behavior occurred again, you'd be written up for a third time and in that case, it would be turned over to HR for a decision of termination.

I had a few employees during my tenure just up and disappear after a second notice. One claimed disability, which really fucked us because in that situation, there's a job freeze until it's rectified (which took more than 13 months to resolve) and the other never showed up for work again.

Unless Warner Brothers can PROVE that they had at least two written warnings about his behavior prior to his abrupt firing, they'll more than likely be on the hook for the remainder of the contract.

keg in kc
03-07-2011, 03:46 PM
I still don't care.

Donger
03-07-2011, 03:46 PM
First off, he wasn't charge with an offense. Secondly, calling Chuck Lorre by his Jewish name can be easily justified since it's HIS NAME.

His name before he changed it, you mean.

WV
03-07-2011, 03:47 PM
This was mentioned by Charlie. I think Cuban is trying to keep his no-holds-barred programming going. They already show Girls Gone Wild with nudity, and Art Mann (which sucks) where pretty much anything goes. It's on the HD side of DirecTV but it's not a premium (pay) channel.

I don't plan to watch anyway. I can't stand Sheen at this point in his career.

alnorth
03-07-2011, 03:48 PM
First off, he wasn't charge with an offense. Secondly, calling Chuck Lorre by his Jewish name can be easily justified since it's HIS NAME.

bullcrap.

His legal name is Charles Levine. He is casually known as Chuck. He is not known as Chaim at all. Therefore, the only reason one would ever use the jewish version of Charles, in the context of a nasty angry rant, is to deliberately attempt to cast his jewish background in a negative light.

You can not say what he said about your boss and not get fired for cause, even if you are Sheen.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 03:48 PM
First of all, you are incorrect in general, guaranteed contracts ARE the exception, not the rule.

LMAO

So, if I sign an employment contract stating that I'm to be paid a certain salary for the next 12 months, the employer can fire me for any reason and not owe me a dime?

Wrong.

And in the NFL, payment is guaranteed to veterans that sign after the season have begun.

Again, you really don't know what you're talking about.

bevischief
03-07-2011, 03:50 PM
So they made a show about Charlie Sheen and then fired Charlie Sheen for being Charlie Sheen?

This.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 03:50 PM
Chaim at all.

Then why did he print it on his Vanity Card?

You lose.

You can not say what he said about your boss and not get fired for cause, even if you are Sheen.

And once more, you're full of shit. Why is it illegal to call someone by their legal name and not their stage name?

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 03:50 PM
His name before he changed it, you mean.

Stage name versus legal name.

BIG difference.

dirk digler
03-07-2011, 03:51 PM
When I was at Paramount, we had to give three written notices in order to fire ANYONE, whether it was an actor, actress, janitor, secretary, etc.

The first was a warning. The was a notice that if said behavior occurred again, you'd be written up for a third time and in that case, it would be turned over to HR for a decision of termination.

I had a few employees during my tenure just up and disappear after a second notice. One claimed disability, which really fucked us because in that situation, there's a job freeze until it's rectified (which took more than 13 months to resolve) and the other never showed up for work again.

Unless Warner Brothers can PROVE that they had at least two written warnings about his behavior prior to his abrupt firing, they'll more than likely be on the hook for the remainder of the contract.

Thanks. Sounds like SOP for most companies.

Donger
03-07-2011, 03:51 PM
Stage name versus legal name.

BIG difference.

LMAO

Stewie
03-07-2011, 03:51 PM
I don't plan to watch anyway. I can't stand Sheen at this point in his career.

I was commenting on Cuban's station. He's trying to make it relevant.

I tried to watch Sheen's Korner but it was so horrible I quit after a few minutes.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 03:53 PM
I was commenting on Cuban's station. He's trying to make it relevant.


Howard Stern made an effort to get Charlie on Sirius but he went with Cuban instead.

alnorth
03-07-2011, 03:53 PM
When I was at Paramount, we had to give three written notices in order to fire ANYONE, whether it was an actor, actress, janitor, secretary, etc.

The first was a warning. The was a notice that if said behavior occurred again, you'd be written up for a third time and in that case, it would be turned over to HR for a decision of termination.

I had a few employees during my tenure just up and disappear after a second notice. One claimed disability, which really ****ed us because in that situation, there's a job freeze until it's rectified (which took more than 13 months to resolve) and the other never showed up for work again.

Unless Warner Brothers can PROVE that they had at least two written warnings about his behavior prior to his abrupt firing, they'll more than likely be on the hook for the remainder of the contract.

We're not talking about being late a few times or not showing up for work.

How many of them repeatedly and aggressively blasted their bosses in radio and TV interviews that were picked up and re-broadcast by the entire country?

DJ's left nut
03-07-2011, 03:53 PM
When I was at Paramount, we had to give three written notices in order to fire ANYONE, whether it was an actor, actress, janitor, secretary, etc.

The first was a warning. The was a notice that if said behavior occurred again, you'd be written up for a third time and in that case, it would be turned over to HR for a decision of termination.

I had a few employees during my tenure just up and disappear after a second notice. One claimed disability, which really ****ed us because in that situation, there's a job freeze until it's rectified (which took more than 13 months to resolve) and the other never showed up for work again.

Unless Warner Brothers can PROVE that they had at least two written warnings about his behavior prior to his abrupt firing, they'll more than likely be on the hook for the remainder of the contract.

Didn't you just try to draw a line between supporting actors and front-line movie stars?

Now you're trying to compare same front line movie star to administrative staff?

I'm absolutely certain that Sheen's employment contract very clearly spells out what notice is required in order to terminate it. I'm equally certain that there is language providing for 'cause'. I'm also pretty sure that CBS has a lawyer or two on their staff.

This isn't going to be as cut and dried as you believe. It will probably come down to a legitimate jury question -- does Charlie Sheen's conduct as an employee of CBS and dominant persona of 'Men' constitute insubordination and/or conduct detrimental to the show/network?

That'll be left to a panel of 'reasonable persons' on the jury to determine.

Yeah, Sheen could very easily lose this one.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 03:55 PM
We're not talking about being late a few times or not showing up for work.

How many of them repeatedly and aggressively blasted their bosses in radio and TV interviews that were picked up and re-broadcast by the entire country?

While ratings continued to ascend.

Unless he was given written notices prior to his termination, he'll win against WB.

alnorth
03-07-2011, 03:55 PM
Stage name versus legal name.

BIG difference.

His legal name is Charles Levine.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 03:56 PM
Didn't you just try to draw a line between supporting actors and front-line movie stars?

Now you're trying to compare same front line movie star to administrative staff?

I'm absolutely certain that Sheen's employment contract very clearly spells out what notice is required in order to terminate it. I'm equally certain that there is language providing for 'cause'. I'm also pretty sure that CBS has a lawyer or two on their staff.

This isn't going to be as cut and dried as you believe. It will probably come down to a legitimate jury question -- does Charlie Sheen's conduct as an employee of CBS and dominant persona of 'Men' constitute insubordination and/or conduct detrimental to the show/network?

That'll be left to a panel of 'reasonable persons' on the jury to determine.

Yeah, Sheen could very easily lose this one.

This will not go before a jury.

We're talking about less than $15 million dollars. Warner Brothers isn't going to spend a shit ton of money fighting him court.

Bill Lundberg
03-07-2011, 03:57 PM
Dane McCloud = WINNING

DJ's left nut
03-07-2011, 03:58 PM
While ratings continued to ascend.

Unless he was given written notices prior to his termination, he'll win against WB.

You simply cannot say that without seeing his employment contract.

And again, do you really believe that CBS hasn't had someone take a look at their deal prior to this? Hell, it's probably been 3 weeks in the making at this point and they've probably been crossing all the Ts and dotting all the Is in the interim.

If it's required that he get notice; he got it. But seeing as how an actor is, for all intents and purposes, an independent contractor, there's a very good chance that whatever notice requirement that exists for the janitor or secretary doesn't apply to him.

alnorth
03-07-2011, 03:58 PM
While ratings continued to ascend.

Unless he was given written notices prior to his termination, he'll win against WB.

ratings does not determine what is and is not insubordination.

Throw out all the jewish stuff if you want, his public and high-profile rants against his bosses easily rise to the level of being fired for cause.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 03:58 PM
His legal name is Charles Levine.

And he referred to himself as "Chaim Levine" on CBS, after Two And A Half Men, on his vanity card.

Please tell us, from a legal standpoint, why referring to him as "Chaim Levine" in a radio interview is grounds for termination?

And how does that absolve WB from their contractual obligations?

Sure-Oz
03-07-2011, 03:59 PM
Probably a repost but i just got home....

who wants to work for sheen

http://bit.ly/hykQQF

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 04:00 PM
You simply cannot say that without seeing his employment contract.

And again, do you really believe that CBS hasn't had someone take a look at their deal prior to this? Hell, it's probably been 3 weeks in the making at this point and they've probably been crossing all the Ts and dotting all the Is in the interim.

It's not CBS that's on the hook, it's Warner Brothers Television. Les Moonves could ask WB to create a new character and could decide to bring the show back next season.

Since WBT has a contract with Chuck Lorre, who also produces "Big Bang Theory" and "Mike & Molly", I'm pretty sure that they decided to drop Charlie now and not worry about the money contractually due.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 04:04 PM
http://www.tmz.com/2011/03/07/charlie-sheen-warner-bros-two-and-a-half-men-terminated-fired-contract-letter-lawsuit-cocaine-drugs-moral-turpitude-felony/

As for why Charlie got fired, the letter says there is a clause in his contract saying they can fire a performer who commits "a felony offense involving moral turpitude."

The letter says, "There is ample evidence supporting Warner Bros. reasonable good faith opinion that Mr. Sheen has committed felony offenses involving moral turpitude (including but not limited to furnishing of cocaine to others as part of the self-destructive lifestyle he has described publicly) that have 'interfere[d] with his ability to fully and completely render all material services required' under the agreement."

-------------------------

The problem is that he wasn't prosecuted nor found guilty in any felony case. So contractually, WBT is still on the hook.

HemiEd
03-07-2011, 04:04 PM
I seriously doubt it. And if so, they certainly had no ground considering he didn't miss any scheduled tapings.

This is all about calling out Chuck Lorre.

Actually from what I read he did miss several due to his most recent trip into rehab.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 04:05 PM
Actually from what I read he did miss several due to his most recent trip into rehab.

They rescheduled the show to accommodate his rehab but he didn't miss any scheduled tapings.

DJ's left nut
03-07-2011, 04:05 PM
This will not go before a jury.

We're talking about less than $15 million dollars. Warner Brothers isn't going to spend a shit ton of money fighting him court.

They won't have a choice.

If Charlie Sheen sues them and demands $200 million (or whatever his claim for damages was), they'll have to defend on the grounds that there's been cause, etc...

It comes down to how principled Sheen's stance is. If he's in it for the money, you may be right - he could come down to $20 million and walk away. But if he's going to go down swinging, CBS doesn't have a choice in the matter. They'll essentially have to establish that their refusal to 'honor' the contract was justified. That's going to be a question of fact and will have to go to a jury.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 04:07 PM
They won't have a choice.

If Charlie Sheen sues them and demands $200 million (or whatever his claim for damages was), they'll have to defend on the grounds that there's been cause, etc...

It comes down to how principled Sheen's stance is. If he's in it for the money, you may be right - he could come down to $20 million and walk away. But if he's going to go down swinging, CBS doesn't have a choice in the matter. They'll essentially have to establish that their refusal to 'honor' the contract was justified. That's going to be a question of fact and will have to go to a jury.

My take is that he'll talk a big game, then walk away with an unspecified settlement.

He'll probably have the standard clause which will stipulate that he can't talk about WB, CBS, Chuck Lorre, etc. for a specified time period or the settlement becomes null and void.

boogblaster
03-07-2011, 04:07 PM
Who cares .. boy has too much money and not enough will-power ...

DJ's left nut
03-07-2011, 04:09 PM
And he referred to himself as "Chaim Levine" on CBS, after Two And A Half Men, on his vanity card.

Please tell us, from a legal standpoint, why referring to him as "Chaim Levine" in a radio interview is grounds for termination?

And how does that absolve WB from their contractual obligations?

Put it in front of a jury, let 'Chuck' go over his various beefs with the management and have him testify that this was a hurtful, intentional shot at his heritage.

Then let the jury sort it out.

To put it in another light - do you recall Roberto Clemente? On occasion, he was known as 'Bob'. It was generally done by those that were attempting to undermine him as a Latin ballplayer. After awhile, it became accepted parlance but he was no less chagrined by it. Had he ever been called out in a national interview and whomever did it referred to him derisively as "Bob", while it doesn't sound bad on its face, it's going to play like absolute dogshit in front of a jury when he goes out there and testifies.

Whether or not you believe it was unreasonable isn't terribly critical. Whether or not it seems benign in a vacuum is completely irrelevant. By the time all is said and done, it's very likely that a jury will see it as an intentional slight and that could easily be enough to nuke that contract.

chiefqueen
03-07-2011, 04:11 PM
Seems to me if the show continues it needs a new name because the "half-man" is almost grown, or they could write a 6 or 7 year old nephew into the script (who would be smarter than either of them) and he could be the "half-man".

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 04:11 PM
Whether or not you believe it was unreasonable isn't terribly critical. Whether or not it seems benign in a vacuum is completely irrelevant. By the time all is said and done, it's very likely that a jury will see it as an intentional slight and that could easily be enough to nuke that contract.

Personally, I thought it was an insult to Lorre. But with that said, I think it will be very difficult for a jury to find that to be enough for termination.

That would be a HUGE risk for WB and knowing Los Angeles jurors, I wouldn't take that chance.

DJ's left nut
03-07-2011, 04:11 PM
My take is that he'll talk a big game, then walk away with an unspecified settlement.

He'll probably have the standard clause which will stipulate that he can't talk about WB, CBS, Chuck Lorre, etc. for a specified time period or the settlement becomes null and void.

Yup, that'd be where my money falls as well.

When folks say it's not about the money, it's usually about the money. I'd imagine California has each party bear the costs of its atty fees as well, so Sheen's not going to want to piss away millions on scorching the earth here.

He'll probably get the last year of his deal and CBS will gladly pay it.

But it makes for an interesting showdown if it all comes apart.

HemiEd
03-07-2011, 04:11 PM
They rescheduled the show to accommodate his rehab but he didn't miss any scheduled tapings.

Noted, thanks. I will admit it, those three shows made me laugh my ass off. Men, Big Bang and Mike and Molley. Funny stuff.

DJ's left nut
03-07-2011, 04:14 PM
Personally, I took it as an insult to Lorre. But with that said, I think it will be very difficult for a jury to find that to be enough for termination.

That would be a HUGE risk for WB and knowing Los Angeles jurors, I wouldn't take that chance.

Juries are funny animals.

In your close, ask the jury if they think they could call their bosses assholes and get away with it. It's an objectionable question in a close (constitutes a type of jury nullification), but they'd absolutely lob that skunk into the jury box.

Donger
03-07-2011, 04:19 PM
Personally, I thought it was an insult to Lorre. But with that said, I think it will be very difficult for a jury to find that to be enough for termination.

That would be a HUGE risk for WB and knowing Los Angeles jurors, I wouldn't take that chance.

But they didn't terminate him for what he said about Lorre, right? They ended the rest of the season but didn't fire him until today. He's said plenty since the decision to end the season and today.

bogey
03-07-2011, 04:19 PM
I see that you think this is a stupid decision, Dane, and perhaps it is for fiscal reasons, but it's kind of refreshing to see them (maybe) putting some things ahead of the dollar signs.

I couldn't agree more.

alnorth
03-07-2011, 04:24 PM
Interesting article, basically laying out the studio's case in more detail.

http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/03/07/why-charlie-sheen-was-fired/

The studio says Sheen’s behavior took a dramatic turn for the worse in January and February, when, contrary to the actor’s claims, his partying began to impact his performance on the show. The studio says Sheen was late to rehearsals, had difficulty remembering his lines and hitting his marks.

After CBS and Warner Bros. suspended production on the series so Sheen could attend rehab, the companies were frustrated that the actor insisted on staying home instead of entering a facility.

“Warner executives requested several times that Mr. Sheen’s representatives send a letter from Mr. Sheen’s doctor explaining his diagnosis, course of treatment and prognosis, and certifying that Mr. Sheen could return to work on February 28,” said the letter. “No such letter was provided. Subsequently, Warner Bros. learned that Mr. Sheen had apparently fired his sobriety coach. Moreover, Mr. Sheen recently declared he had self-healed his addictions by saying that he “blinked and cured [his] brain.” Accordingly, it is not surprising that no professional apparently was willing to attest that Mr. Sheen had self-treated, self-healed and self-cured his brain of his addiction problems.”

“As the lead actor in a successful television comedy, Mr. Sheen’s essential duties encompass more than just showing up and delivering lines,” Warner Bros. says. “One essential duty is working cooperatively and creatively with the other persons critical to the production. Mr. Sheen went from an actor who performed those duties to an individual whose self-destructive conduct resulted in his hospitalization, his inability to work at all for a period and the rapid erosion of the cooperative and creative process necessary to produce the Show.”

DJ's left nut
03-07-2011, 04:26 PM
I couldn't agree more.

Just a question.

Do you believe they're doing it for the children?

No matter what their motives - they aren't benevolent. It's either the show's creator throwing a temper tantrum and deciding to whip his dick out over a personality clash, or CBS deciding they can make more money off this (or lose less) by running away from it than by fighting it.

Nothing they're doing here is for the good of mankind. It's either finances or ego - both of which are pretty stupid reasons. And ultimately, if it's ego, it's going to put a lot of grips, makeup artists, and various other grunts that are living week to week on the bread lines.

Ultimately, I'm okay with corporations that are designed to make money using profit motive as their reason to act. Otherwise they're damaging their shareholders as well as other 'groundlings' that get caught up in nets that were never cast for them anyway.

bogey
03-07-2011, 04:43 PM
Just a question.

Do you believe they're doing it for the children?

No matter what their motives - they aren't benevolent. It's either the show's creator throwing a temper tantrum and deciding to whip his dick out over a personality clash, or CBS deciding they can make more money off this (or lose less) by running away from it than by fighting it.

Nothing they're doing here is for the good of mankind. It's either finances or ego - both of which are pretty stupid reasons. And ultimately, if it's ego, it's going to put a lot of grips, makeup artists, and various other grunts that are living week to week on the bread lines.

Ultimately, I'm okay with corporations that are designed to make money using profit motive as their reason to act. Otherwise they're damaging their shareholders as well as other 'groundlings' that get caught up in nets that were never cast for them anyway.

I'm not happy the show was cancelled. Personally, I think they'll get another season out of it because of the curiosity factor and if they cast it well, it could go on. Charlie Sheen's success is based on his writers. His ego bit him in the ass. Sure, he'll work again, but it's likely he'll NEVER get a gig as good as this one was. His actions would get any other mortal fired, I'm glad he got fired.

Rams Fan
03-07-2011, 04:45 PM
Winning

bogey
03-07-2011, 04:52 PM
Just a question.

Do you believe they're doing it for the children?

No matter what their motives - they aren't benevolent. It's either the show's creator throwing a temper tantrum and deciding to whip his dick out over a personality clash, or CBS deciding they can make more money off this (or lose less) by running away from it than by fighting it.

Nothing they're doing here is for the good of mankind. It's either finances or ego - both of which are pretty stupid reasons. And ultimately, if it's ego, it's going to put a lot of grips, makeup artists, and various other grunts that are living week to week on the bread lines.

Ultimately, I'm okay with corporations that are designed to make money using profit motive as their reason to act. Otherwise they're damaging their shareholders as well as other 'groundlings' that get caught up in nets that were never cast for them anyway.

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Just Passin' By
03-07-2011, 04:56 PM
Ted McGinley must be loosening up in the actor's bullpen.

Donger
03-07-2011, 04:57 PM
Interesting article, basically laying out the studio's case in more detail.

http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/03/07/why-charlie-sheen-was-fired/

The studio maintains Sheen defaulted on his contract due to several factors: Being unable to perform his duties on Men; admitting to cocaine use; making derogatory public comments about the show; and refusing to continue on the series without ďradical changesĒ being made.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-07-2011, 05:09 PM
That has to kill the show, doesn't it?

Surely they won't try to bring it back with Stamos. I've heard Rob Lowe as a darkhorse candidate (awesome idea, BTW), but I can't see how they could manage it within the storyline unless they flat out ignore it.

Seems pretty dumb to me.

I don't think Chris Connelly postulating a replacement idea on The BS Report qualifies as a dark horse candidate.

cardken
03-07-2011, 05:09 PM
Ted McGinley must be loosening up in the actor's bullpen.

QFT ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

Gadzooks
03-07-2011, 05:20 PM
http://www.nndb.com/people/587/000025512/ted-sized.jpg

Luke
03-07-2011, 05:42 PM
So does Charlie get royalites for all the shows in syndication? I am thinking I could live comfortably on that amount of money.

Charlie is begining to look like a friend I knew who was strung out on meth.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 05:42 PM
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/charlie-sheens-lawyer-warner-bros-165031

Charlie Sheen's Lawyer to Warner Bros: ‘We Will Sue’

6:18 PM 3/7/2011 by Matthew Belloni

Charlie Sheen’s attorney is already responding to his client’s termination Monday by Warner Bros. from Two and a Half Men:
“We will sue,” Sheen lawyer Marty Singer tells THR in a phone interview. “It’s a matter of when. It could be this week, it could be in a little while. We’re in no rush. But we will sue.”

Singer has exchanged a series of increasingly rancorous letters with Warner Bros. since production on the hit CBS series was shut down in February. The litigator says he was not surprised Warners moved to terminate Sheen’s employment, but he maintains his position that the studio is in breach of its agreement with Sheen despite the actor’s erratic behavior and incendiary comments directed at Men co-creator Chuck Lorre. “They have no basis to suspend or terminate Charlie Sheen,” he says.

Warners, in a letter from attorney John Spiegel to the Sheen camp, claims Sheen "has been engaged in dangerously self-destructive conduct and appears to be very ill,” and was fired for disrupting the show and violating a clause in his contract by committing "a felony offense involving moral turpitude."

But Singer says Warners, which made Sheen the highest-paid sitcom star in television despite his repeated and public brushes with the law, has opened itself up to a massive lawsuit.

“Their position is absolutely ridiculous,” Singer says. “Warner Bros. had no objection to my client pleading guilty to a felony while they were actively negotiating his new deal—they did his deal before his plea bargain!”

Singer reveals that Warners’ letter terminating Sheen’s services was sent in response to a blistering letter Singer sent WBTV on March 2 outlining his client’s case against the studio. That letter, a copy of which was obtained by THR, claims the following:

“From January 2010, even after my client was arrested and then charged with a felony and misdemeanor charges, Warner Bros. did not suspend my client. Instead it wanted my client to agree to commit to do additional seasons of [Men]. Warner Bros. confirmed that it would continue to employ Mr. Sheen even if he pleaded guilty to a felony as long as he did not serve jail time that would interfere with the production schedule.”

Singer maintains the real reason Sheen was fired was because he offended Lorre, the studio’s top showrunner. Lorre would also be a defendant in a lawsuit.

“This is nothing but Warner Bros. acting on behalf of Chuck Lorre,” Singer tells THR.

-------------------------

This is what I've been stating all along...

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 05:43 PM
So does Charlie get royalites for all the shows in syndication?

Yes, he'll receive residuals as long as the show is syndicated and airing.

unothadeal
03-07-2011, 05:47 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oVx8lZIgLpA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Lonewolf Ed
03-07-2011, 05:52 PM
That has to kill the show, doesn't it?

Surely they won't try to bring it back with Stamos. I've heard Rob Lowe as a darkhorse candidate (awesome idea, BTW), but I can't see how they could manage it within the storyline unless they flat out ignore it.

Seems pretty dumb to me.

They could just say the character was in a terrible accident and had plastic surgery and now he looks like Rob Lowe... :p

alnorth
03-07-2011, 05:53 PM
http://www.deadline.com/2011/03/charlie-sheen-fired-from-two-and-a-half-men/

Another article on the letter.

Sheen's termination by Warner Bros. TV follows a relentless media blitz by the Two and a Half Men star who has been taking numerous swipes at CBS, Warner Bros. and the show's co-creator/executive producer Chuck Lorre over the past 2 weeks.

...

In preparation, the studio last week hired top attorneys Ron Olson and John Spiegel.

...

It claims that Sheen reneged on a promise he made as part of signing a new deal with Warner Bros. in May, which required him to continue rehab treatments.

...

In the letter, the studio sites "his inability to perform the essential duties of his position, (including) his physical appearance, inability to deliver lines, inability to collaborate creatively with staff and crew, inability to work with the executive producers," which subsequently escalated to "inflammatory comments poisoning key working relationships, and frustration of the show's creative environment by the public spectacle of his self-inflicted disintegration."

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 05:57 PM
http://www.deadline.com/2011/03/charlie-sheen-fired-from-two-and-a-half-men/

Another article on the letter.

That letter is filled with nonsense and unless that "promise" is contractually stipulated, it's inconsequential.

Gadzooks
03-07-2011, 06:02 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/92WOvL_Ejc8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

ClevelandBronco
03-07-2011, 06:04 PM
They could just say the character was in a terrible accident and had plastic surgery and now he looks like Rob Lowe... :p

That's actually brilliant. He could be freaking out about the botched results of the surgery job. It could work. For one episode.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 06:06 PM
That's actually brilliant. He could be freaking out about the botched results of the surgery job. It could work. For one episode.

They should just do it like it's been done on Soap Operas for the past 60 years:

"The part of Charlie Harper will now be portrayed by John Stamos".

Live and die by the sword.

Al Bundy
03-07-2011, 06:09 PM
Yeah, absolutely. He has a contract for 32 more episodes at $1.8 million per. They're obligated to pay it.

And they'd better negotiate a settlement soon or CBS could see their ratings plummet. The dude was more than 2 million Twitter followers and if they thought he was on a media binge before, he'll be everywhere following his firing.

He could go on Howard tomorrow and ask for all of his listeners to boycott CBS. And I'm sure than more than half would join in.

CBS has a major problem on their hands, IMO. This was a stupid, stupid decision.


They should have just had him hit by a bus.

Just Passin' By
03-07-2011, 06:13 PM
Jon Cryer must be killing puppies by the truckload right now.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 06:15 PM
Jon Cryer must be killing puppies by the truckload right now.

I doubt it. The guy has made a shit ton of money as well, plus, he's married to a smokin' hot local news anchor.

KcMizzou
03-07-2011, 06:19 PM
I doubt it. The guy has made a shit ton of money as well, plus, he's married to a smokin' hot local news anchor.I haven't seen the show much (just a few random episodes), but I've seen him in a few interviews. He seems a hell of a lot funnier than his character on the show.

Bill Lundberg
03-07-2011, 06:21 PM
Here's how they continue without him. Start the new season at Charlie Harper's funeral where someone more creative than I come up with a strange way to die. Cut to an attorney's office where Allan finds out that Charlie left everything to a hooker, better yet, a porn star and a pot magazine cover model.

Down and out Allan has no idea where to go. Then Evelyn mentions that Allan has another brother - a child she gave up for adoption before Charlie and Allan. Allan sets out to find his long lost brother only to find he's an older richer version of Charlie.

After that its a crap shoot on whether or not the writers can keep it funny.

Rain Man
03-07-2011, 06:30 PM
Here's how they continue without him. Start the new season at Charlie Harper's funeral where someone more creative than I come up with a strange way to die. Cut to an attorney's office where Allan finds out that Charlie left everything to a hooker, better yet, a porn star and a pot magazine cover model.

Down and out Allan has no idea where to go. Then Evelyn mentions that Allan has another brother - a child she gave up for adoption before Charlie and Allan. Allan sets out to find his long lost brother only to find he's an older richer version of Charlie.

After that its a crap shoot on whether or not the writers can keep it funny.

How about if he just stays and lives with the hooker? Maybe Charlie's will spelled out that Allan can continue living there, and neither one of them can afford to move out.

And it's not one of those golden-hearted movie hookers. It's a girl who runs a volume business.

Donger
03-07-2011, 06:33 PM
Jon Cryer IS THE F*CKING ANTI-CHRIST!

Bill Lundberg
03-07-2011, 06:34 PM
How about if he just stays and lives with the hooker? Maybe Charlie's will spelled out that Allan can continue living there, and neither one of them can afford to move out.

And it's not one of those golden-hearted movie hookers. It's a girl who runs a volume business.

I like it. Lets write a new show together.

ClevelandBronco
03-07-2011, 06:35 PM
Jon Cryer IS THE F*CKING ANTI-CHRIST!

See? Now that could work, too.

JD10367
03-07-2011, 06:38 PM
I can't believe this happened. I can't believe the two sides couldn't sit down and hammer out their differences, when so much money was at stake and the whole operation was at its height of popularity. It's crazy when egos and stupidity get in the way and kill the golden goose. /Roger Goodell and the NFLPA

Rain Man
03-07-2011, 06:43 PM
I like it. Lets write a new show together.

I'm in. Dibs on writing the hooker's lines.

Halfcan
03-07-2011, 06:45 PM
If CBS thinks there is still a nickle to squeeze out of this those bastards will do it.

Gracie Dean
03-07-2011, 06:48 PM
without Sheen, there is no Two and a half Men

cardken
03-07-2011, 06:51 PM
Funny Stuff!
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/duh-winning-cold-open/17wl7iwi9?q=Charlie+Sheen&rel=msn&from=en-us_msnhp&form=msnrll&gt1=42008

cardken
03-07-2011, 06:57 PM
Jon Cryer IS THE F*CKING ANTI-CHRIST!

This Is Funny........http://www.nbcbayarea.com/entertainment/television/Jon-Cryer-Ellen-Temp-117342233.html

alnorth
03-07-2011, 07:05 PM
Went ahead and read the letter (http://www.tmz.com/2011/03/07/charlie-sheen-warner-bros-two-and-a-half-men-terminated-fired-contract-letter-lawsuit-cocaine-drugs-moral-turpitude-felony/) sent by WB.

Few more bits of information in there that I hadn't seen mentioned. First, that "felony offense involving moral turpitude" clause does not require an indictment or conviction. It seems to only require either that the producer has a reasonable and good faith opinion that he committed a felony offense involving moral turpitude, or if he is indicted, or if he is convicted. I don't think it will be hard, just using Sheen's own statements, to show why you'd have a good faith reason to believe that he's using cocaine.

Aside from the drugs, Sheen's frequent forceful statements that Lorre and other execs would have to be gone before he'd be willing to work again could haunt him. From the letter:

As an initial matter, without Mr. Lorre's participation in the Show, CBS is not required to accept additional episodes. Accordingly, under the Agreement, Mr. Sheen's guaranteed number of episodes is reduced by the actual number of episodes for which production and/or delivery was so prevented.

...

Mr. Sheen has also engaged in conduct that constitutes an Immediate Default under Section 13(b) of the Standard Terms & Conditions. For example, on February 25,2011, when asked during an interview if the Series was over, Mr. Sheen responded:

"I mean if they want to roll back season nine, I gave them my word
so I would do that, but not with the turds that are currently in
place."

Subsequently, Mr. Sheen is reported to have declared that he would not return to the series unless there were some "radical changes." Mr. Sheen's refusal to work on season nine pursuant to the terms of his existing Agreement constitutes an Immediate Default under Section 13(b) of the Standard Terms and Conditions.

Finally, according to WB this has to go to arbitration, so I'm not sure why Sheen's lawyers are talking lawsuit, unless its non-binding arbitration. In arbitration, WB also says they will seek to be paid for damages that were caused by Sheen.

Halfcan
03-07-2011, 07:10 PM
I hope this Sheen thing stays the number 1 story in the World for YEARS to come-lol

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 07:22 PM
Went ahead and read the letter (http://www.tmz.com/2011/03/07/charlie-sheen-warner-bros-two-and-a-half-men-terminated-fired-contract-letter-lawsuit-cocaine-drugs-moral-turpitude-felony/) sent by WB.

It's just a bunch of bluster.

If WBTV moves forward to sue Sheen, their reputation will be destroyed.

How many well-known actors will sign up to work for a company that will sue their employees?

I don't think you understand all of the ramifications.

alnorth
03-07-2011, 07:26 PM
It's just a bunch of bluster.

If WBTV moves forward to sue Sheen, their reputation will be destroyed.

How many well-known actors will sign up to work for a company that will sue their employees?

I don't think you understand all of the ramifications.

I doubt WB would sue if Sheen were willing to walk away, but if Sheen asks an arbitrator to give him a huge pile of money, then they may as well counter.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 07:35 PM
I doubt WB would sue if Sheen were willing to walk away, but if Sheen asks an arbitrator to give him a huge pile of money, then they may as well counter.

First off, WBTV hasn't said they'll sue. They've stated that they'll reserve the right.

This is NOT going to court. More than likely, it'll happen as I described earlier with Charlie walking away with his salary paid in full for 2010.

WBTV have already set precedents: Instead of firing him or threatening to fire him for his earlier transgressions, they instead chose to renew his contracts AND give him a pay raise.

This is ALL about Chuck Lorre, plain and simple.

Urc Burry
03-07-2011, 07:38 PM
Always thought Sheen was a huge douche on the show and before...Now after his twitter and his recent interviews, he's kind of growing on me haha

Rain Man
03-07-2011, 08:10 PM
I think the whole thing is funny and Sheen has been entertaining, but I read an article that gave me pause. I don't remember if it was online for a link, but it was basically asking how he can have all of the police problems he's had, trashing hotel rooms, supposedly strangling some woman, bragging about doing large amounts of cocaine, and all of the other stuff, and that he hasn't been arrested. The article pointed out that the average person would be in jail for any of the various offenses that he's been, yet Charlie goes home and walks it off.

Maybe it's tiger blood or something, but I think it's more because celebrities get better treatment than normal people.

veist
03-07-2011, 08:34 PM
First off, WBTV hasn't said they'll sue. They've stated that they'll reserve the right.

This is NOT going to court. More than likely, it'll happen as I described earlier with Charlie walking away with his salary paid in full for 2010.

WBTV have already set precedents: Instead of firing him or threatening to fire him for his earlier transgressions, they instead chose to renew his contracts AND give him a pay raise.

This is ALL about Chuck Lorre, plain and simple.

I dunno what the deal is with alnorth basically ignoring you and I doubt you need me to say this but you are right on the money with this shit.

alnorth
03-07-2011, 09:19 PM
This is ALL about Chuck Lorre, plain and simple.

You say that as if that should not be good enough, in and of itself.

Frankly, I think you are too far inside your own Hollywood bubble and divorced from the real world. This is not going to play well in arbitration. Forget the jewish thing, forget the drugs, what about plain old hostile violence-threatening insubordination? Lorre is his f**king boss, is he not?

Not that WB doesn't have a whole hell of a lot to claim Sheen breached aside from Lorre, but... on what distant bizarro-world planet can you go in front of the f**king world, shout that your boss is a turd, a retarded zombie, and worse,... and not get fired for cause? Really? Even Charlie Sheen gets to do that without consequence? I don't think so.

Pull all the past cases and examples you want, I bet none of them told the world his boss was a retarded zombie. No one was drugged-up or stupid enough to do something as blatantly contract-breaching as that.

Sheen is toast.

alnorth
03-07-2011, 09:20 PM
I dunno what the deal is with alnorth basically ignoring you and I doubt you need me to say this but you are right on the money with this shit.

You are going to feel retarded when Sheen loses.

alnorth
03-07-2011, 09:27 PM
I think the whole thing is funny and Sheen has been entertaining, but I read an article that gave me pause. I don't remember if it was online for a link, but it was basically asking how he can have all of the police problems he's had, trashing hotel rooms, supposedly strangling some woman, bragging about doing large amounts of cocaine, and all of the other stuff, and that he hasn't been arrested. The article pointed out that the average person would be in jail for any of the various offenses that he's been, yet Charlie goes home and walks it off.

Maybe it's tiger blood or something, but I think it's more because celebrities get better treatment than normal people.

Pffft, only normal lesser people like us ever get fired for that.

Charlie Sheen can talk sh*t about his network, his company, and his boss without fear of any consequences. We cant do that, but Sheen is better than us mere mortals, he can say anything about his employer without losing a dime.

Just Passin' By
03-07-2011, 09:29 PM
Pffft, only normal lesser people like us ever get fired for that.

Charlie Sheen can talk sh*t about his network, his company, and his boss without fear of any consequences. We cant do that, but Sheen is better than us mere mortals, he can say anything about his employer without losing a dime.

People say horrible things about their boss, without getting fired, all the time.

alnorth
03-07-2011, 09:35 PM
People say horrible things about their boss, without getting fired, all the time.

On national television? In front of the entire world? No, they f**king don't. This isn't an off-handed remark in the breakroom where the boss was standing behind you.

Bump
03-07-2011, 09:38 PM
that show sucks balls and is super gay anyways. MEEEEENNNN

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 09:52 PM
You say that as if that should not be good enough, in and of itself.

Frankly, I think you are too far inside your own Hollywood bubble and divorced from the real world. This is not going to play well in arbitration. Forget the jewish thing, forget the drugs, what about plain old hostile violence-threatening insubordination? Lorre is his f**king boss, is he not?

Not that WB doesn't have a whole hell of a lot to claim Sheen breached aside from Lorre, but... on what distant bizarro-world planet can you go in front of the f**king world, shout that your boss is a turd, a retarded zombie, and worse,... and not get fired for cause? Really? Even Charlie Sheen gets to do that without consequence? I don't think so.

Pull all the past cases and examples you want, I bet none of them told the world his boss was a retarded zombie. No one was drugged-up or stupid enough to do something as blatantly contract-breaching as that.

Sheen is toast.

And I think you're completely clueless.

Just Passin' By
03-07-2011, 09:53 PM
On national television? In front of the entire world? No, they f**king don't. This isn't an off-handed remark in the breakroom where the boss was standing behind you.

People get away with badmouthing the boss all the time. The national television stuff means nothing, unless your next claim is that ordinary people are put into situations where they are badmouthing their bosses on national TV in front of the entire world, during work disputes, all the time, and always get fired.


It's an extraordinary situation, where the normal rules won't always apply. If it makes you feel better, Megan Fox won't be in the next Transformers movie, after she bad mouthed Michael Bay.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 09:53 PM
Pffft, only normal lesser people like us ever get fired for that.


I don't think you're even remotely familiar with the employment laws in the state of California.

bowener
03-07-2011, 10:11 PM
I want to be Dane's friend.

Someday, Dane, on the day of your daughter's wedding, may I seek advice from you about LA?

alnorth
03-07-2011, 10:19 PM
'I'll cut their throats': Manic Charlie Sheen threatens violence in frenzied F-word webcast (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1363833/Charlie-Sheen-rages-torpedoes-truth-frenzied-F-word-webcast.html)

Classy. This an excellent strategy to support the theory that you were fired for no good reason.

This man is not even sane, much less capable of acting.

alnorth
03-07-2011, 10:24 PM
I don't think you're even remotely familiar with the employment laws in the state of California.

This doesn't help you. Contracts aside (which Sheen breached), I do know that California is an at-will employment state. Do you?

Bonus pic, here's the crazy dude who you think will defeat WB:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/07/article-1363833-0D822B70000005DC-748_468x325.jpg

veist
03-07-2011, 10:25 PM
You are going to feel retarded when Sheen loses.

No, I'm really not. I don't really give a shit who "wins" and I can tell you that Dane is exactly on the money when he says that it probably ends with Warner settling paying a bunch of money to Sheen so he and this will go away.

DaneMcCloud
03-07-2011, 10:26 PM
This doesn't help you. Contracts aside (which Sheen breached), I do know that California is an at-will employment state. Do you?

Bonus pic, here's the crazy dude who you think will defeat WB:



Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

You have absolutely NO firsthand knowledge of his contract with Warner Brothers and the longer this drags on, the worse THEY look for dragging it out.

It'll be settled shortly. WBTV isn't going to allow this case to be drug out over the course of the next six months to year.

alnorth
03-07-2011, 10:31 PM
Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

You have absolutely NO firsthand knowledge of his contract with Warner Brothers and the longer this drags on, the worse THEY look for dragging it out.

It'll be settled shortly. WBTV isn't going to allow this case to be drug out over the course of the next six months to year.

No response to the fact that I knew that California is an at-will state and everything that includes? Fine, keep this attitude that you somehow mystically know something that others do not.

If Charlie Sheen is correct, why would HE accept a settlement for anything less than his contract? WB might offer a token face-saving "go away" settlement.

Just Passin' By
03-07-2011, 10:37 PM
No response to the fact that I knew that California is an at-will state and everything that includes? Fine, keep this attitude that you somehow mystically know something that others do not.

If Charlie Sheen is correct, why would HE accept a settlement for anything less than his contract? WB might offer a token face-saving "go away" settlement.

I'm not sure you understand how "at will" works, since you're using it in an argument regarding a contract employee.

bowener
03-07-2011, 10:40 PM
'I'll cut their throats': Manic Charlie Sheen threatens violence in frenzied F-word webcast (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1363833/Charlie-Sheen-rages-torpedoes-truth-frenzied-F-word-webcast.html)

Classy. This an excellent strategy to support the theory that you were fired for no good reason.

This man is not even sane, much less capable of acting.

Maybe he is acting.

bowener
03-07-2011, 10:42 PM
No response to the fact that I knew that California is an at-will state and everything that includes? Fine, keep this attitude that you somehow mystically know something that others do not.

If Charlie Sheen is correct, why would HE accept a settlement for anything less than his contract? WB might offer a token face-saving "go away" settlement.

First, I would like to say that I have no dog in this fight.

Second, I think most people are going to trust the guy that lives and has been employed in the state of CA, and has even been employed as an entertainer.

Third, wouldn't it be smart of Charlie to accept a settlement for less than full to end it quickly (he seems to think in the "now" so to speak), as well as save a shit ton in legal fees?

I'm pretty much an idiot, but those are some things I thought up in 1 minute.

kysirsoze
03-07-2011, 10:44 PM
No response to the fact that I knew that California is an at-will state and everything that includes? Fine, keep this attitude that you somehow mystically know something that others do not.

If Charlie Sheen is correct, why would HE accept a settlement for anything less than his contract? WB might offer a token face-saving "go away" settlement.

I don't know what HR background you may have, but I can tell you that my sister has worked in the fieild for many years in several states, including CA. I am a sometimes working actor and the stories I tell her about how my employment works boggle her mind. It really is a different animal.

Count Zarth
03-07-2011, 10:48 PM
They should get Emilio Estevez to play the part, doing a horrible imitation of his brother. I'd watch.

First, lose some weight.

http://currentconcepts.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/emilio-estevez.jpg

Al Bundy
03-07-2011, 10:48 PM
Doesn't really matter, California will sink into the ocean soon enough.

Sure-Oz
03-07-2011, 10:49 PM
Maybe he is acting.

Didn't Joakin Phoenix do this shit

veist
03-07-2011, 10:50 PM
I'm no expert here but isn't the whole at-will thing a red herring since WB is party to collective bargaining?

bowener
03-07-2011, 11:09 PM
Didn't Joakin Phoenix do this shit

Yeah.

ChiefsCountry
03-07-2011, 11:14 PM
They should get Emilio Estevez to play the part, doing a horrible imitation of his brother. I'd watch.

First, lose some weight.

http://currentconcepts.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/emilio-estevez.jpg

They had him on the show already and killed him off.

chiefsnorth
03-08-2011, 06:06 AM
Remember, he is winning. Everyone who says he's imploding is just jealous of his success.

Swanman
03-08-2011, 07:02 AM
Opie and Anthony played a chunk of Sheen's webcast, and it was epically bad. At first it was so bad that it was entertaining, but that quickly went away and it was just bad. Definitely not winning.

DBOSHO
03-08-2011, 09:01 AM
All this sheen crap came out of nowhere.

Kerberos
03-08-2011, 10:50 AM
Yeah, absolutely. He has a contract for 32 more episodes at $1.8 million per. They're obligated to pay it.

And they'd better negotiate a settlement soon or CBS could see their ratings plummet. The dude was more than 2 million Twitter followers and if they thought he was on a media binge before, he'll be everywhere following his firing.

He could go on Howard tomorrow and ask for all of his listeners to boycott CBS. And I'm sure than more than half would join in.

CBS has a major problem on their hands, IMO. This was a stupid, stupid decision.

Yup

Heard on the radio this morning that he had what amounts to a "Micheal J Fox" clause in his contract that says no matter WHAT happens if the show is still on the air he gets paid.

You just confirmed what they were saying on KOMP morning show here in Vegas.

DJ's left nut
03-08-2011, 10:53 AM
Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

You have absolutely NO firsthand knowledge of his contract with Warner Brothers and the longer this drags on, the worse THEY look for dragging it out.

It'll be settled shortly. WBTV isn't going to allow this case to be drug out over the course of the next six months to year.

It doesn't appear you have any first hand knowledge of his contract either. The fact that you're citing "the employment laws of California" here pretty well establishes that you're grasping at straws.

The employment laws of California will not be controlling here. They're base level nonsense for people that don't have employment contracts. I guarantee that Sheen, as a de-facto independent contractor, will have his rights spelled out in his employment contract and they will supersede the threshold requirements of California state law.

You're making a pragmatic argument, which is pretty much right. However, it has nothing to do with your status as 'an insider' seeing as how you've conceded that you don't know what his contract contains. Further, you've attempted to essentially condescend your way out of a backwards argument. You went from saying that he'll file "a huge lawsuit" and that he has a clear winner, to saying "he's entitled to 32 episodes at 1.8 mil per" to "well it's really only a fight over $15 million and they'll settle..."

Yeah, they'll settle. Lawyers have brilliantly conjured up a system whereby they are so expensive that people pay them not to work (and there are laws in place preventing non-lawyers from doing said job). It's genius, really. But that comes down to a very simple cost/benefit analysis that anyone with a lick of legal knowledge can put together.

There are times you've had the high ground in these discussions. This isn't one of them. If Sheen wants to litigate, I'm fairly certain he'll lose and he'll lose badly. That said, he's not going to litigate and anyone he does choose to sue would be foolish not to counter-sue. Remember this axiom - Answers are for pussies. If you're getting sued, there's no sense in playing defense; any answer from a lawyer worth paying is going to have a counter-claim in it as well. And rest assured, any counter-claim brought against Charlie Sheen is going to be a doozy.

gblowfish
03-08-2011, 10:56 AM
T-shirts, get your T-shirts here....
http://www.betterthanpants.com/t-shirts/charlie-sheen-shirts/index.html?c=470

KCUnited
03-08-2011, 11:05 AM
When the lady in the cube next to me, in her mom jeans and Tweety Bird sweatshirt, is dropping winning and tigers blood, it makes me ready to move on to the next train wreck.

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2011, 11:05 AM
It doesn't appear you have any first hand knowledge of his contract either. The fact that you're citing "the employment laws of California" here pretty well establishes that you're grasping at straws.

Untrue.

First off, I NEVER stated that I had "inside" information about his contract. But with that said, I'm very familiar with the terms of "superstar" contracts and I highly doubt that Sheen's would be any different.

There are a lot of factors at stake here, including the fact that Mark Burg, Sheen's manager, is ALSO an executive producer of the show.

This is a very small town and burning bridges is not wise. Sure, Charlie burned bridges with WBTV and Chuck Lorre but I'm fairly certain that neither Mark Burg nor WBTV want to sever their relationship.

To be completely honest, a good friend and former colleague is a VP of legal at WB but I'm not going to call or send an email asking their strategy or what's really going on behind the scenes at this point in time.

DJ's left nut
03-08-2011, 11:16 AM
Untrue.

First off, I NEVER stated that I had "inside" information about his contract. But with that said, I'm very familiar with the terms of "superstar" contracts and I highly doubt that Sheen's would be any different.

There are a lot of factors at stake here, including the fact that Mark Burg, Sheen's manager, is ALSO an executive producer of the show.

This is a very small town and burning bridges is not wise. Sure, Charlie burned bridges with WBTV and Chuck Lorre but I'm fairly certain that neither Mark Burg nor WBTV want to sever their relationship.

To be completely honest, a good friend and former colleague is a VP of legal at WB but I'm not going to call or send an email asking their strategy or what's really going on behind the scenes at this point in time.

So how does any of this rebut what Alnorth has said?

If you know the terms of a standard contract for that level of person, surely you also know it's going to have terms for termination. From what I've read, it actually seems to have most of the standard language for your average high $$ CEO (right down to the 'moral turpitude' language). Do you seriously think the "employment laws of California" are going to be anything other than procedural points?

I don't believe he ever said that WB is going to burn Sheen's house to the ground. He's said pretty much the same thing I've said - If Charlie Sheen insists of filing a lawsuit similar to the one he's sabre-rattling about right now, WB will almost certainly counter-sue. At that point, the money involved in litigating, let alone the amount of risk both parties are taking on, will drive a settlement.

But ultimately you keep intimating this will be a WB decision; I don't see it that way. It will come down to how reasonable Sheen wants to act here. If he won't settle for somewhere near $10-$15 million, I don't see WB settling it. The longer this has gone on, the more unhinged and unlikeable Sheen has started to look. If WB has to take a hit, they're going to get their pound of flesh and they'll go down fighting, IMO.

And if that's the case, Sheen could easily lose. None of your earlier rhetoric about 'obligations to pay' will stand if they can convince a panel of 9 individuals that his conduct excused their performance. Given what we know, not to mention the litany of things we don't know - how can you say that's farfetched?

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2011, 11:19 AM
So how does any of this rebut what Alnorth has said?

If you know the terms of a standard contract for that level of person, surely you also know it's going to have terms for termination. From what I've read, it actually seems to have most of the standard language for your average high $$ CEO (right down to the 'moral turpitude' language). Do you seriously think the "employment laws of California" are going to be anything other than procedural points?

I don't believe he ever said that WB is going to burn Sheen's house to the ground. He's said pretty much the same thing I've said - If Charlie Sheen insists of filing a lawsuit similar to the one he's sabre-rattling about right now, WB will almost certainly counter-sue. At that point, the money involved in litigating, let alone the amount of risk both parties are taking on, will drive a settlement.

But ultimately you keep intimating this will be a WB decision; I don't see it that way. It will come down to how reasonable Sheen wants to act here. If he won't settle for somewhere near $10-$15 million, I don't see WB settling it. The longer this has gone on, the more unhinged and unlikeable Sheen has started to look. If WB has to take a hit, they're going to get their pound of flesh and they'll go down fighting, IMO.

And if that's the case, Sheen could easily lose. None of your earlier rhetoric about 'obligations to pay' will stand if they can convince a panel of 9 individuals that his conduct excused their performance. Given what we know, not to mention the litany of things we don't know - how can you say that's farfetched?

It's not going to go to court, plain and simple. It won't. There's no way.

There are far too many skeletons in people's closets and (I'm not talking about Charlie's) for this to go public. As I stated earlier, WBTV will likely pay his contract through the end of this season (roughly $14 million) and be done.

You have to keep in mind that this is a SMALL town and every action that a studio, studio exec, manager and talent makes has long term repercussions.

Just Passin' By
03-08-2011, 12:00 PM
So how does any of this rebut what Alnorth has said?

If you know the terms of a standard contract for that level of person, surely you also know it's going to have terms for termination. From what I've read, it actually seems to have most of the standard language for your average high $$ CEO (right down to the 'moral turpitude' language). Do you seriously think the "employment laws of California" are going to be anything other than procedural points?

I don't believe he ever said that WB is going to burn Sheen's house to the ground. He's said pretty much the same thing I've said - If Charlie Sheen insists of filing a lawsuit similar to the one he's sabre-rattling about right now, WB will almost certainly counter-sue. At that point, the money involved in litigating, let alone the amount of risk both parties are taking on, will drive a settlement.

But ultimately you keep intimating this will be a WB decision; I don't see it that way. It will come down to how reasonable Sheen wants to act here. If he won't settle for somewhere near $10-$15 million, I don't see WB settling it. The longer this has gone on, the more unhinged and unlikeable Sheen has started to look. If WB has to take a hit, they're going to get their pound of flesh and they'll go down fighting, IMO.

And if that's the case, Sheen could easily lose. None of your earlier rhetoric about 'obligations to pay' will stand if they can convince a panel of 9 individuals that his conduct excused their performance. Given what we know, not to mention the litany of things we don't know - how can you say that's farfetched?

The suit will be based upon what's already happened, and everything now is just sound and fury. If Sheen's attorney is right, WB doesn't dare to "go down swinging". They're talking in the neighborhood of $300 million. When the numbers get that high, pride is not an option. Besides, Sheen could start running around naked while screaming "I'm batman!" and it won't matter, unless there's one hell of an interesting clause in that employment contract.

Also, I don't know how it will shake out, but California's employment laws will apply (in combination with contract law. Unless Sheen's attorney was fast asleep during employment negotiations, "At will" will not apply, despite Alnorth's mention of it, because there was a contract in place, and that contract will have set parameters for dismissal

Finally, if WB knew that Sheen was already batshit crazy and/or doing coke or committing other felonies before signing onto the contract extension, Sheen's lawyer may have a good argument against enforcement of any penalty/punishment clauses tied to such activities, depending upon California law.

DJ's left nut
03-08-2011, 12:12 PM
They're talking in the neighborhood of $300 million. When the numbers get that high, pride is not an option. Sheen could start running around naked while screaming "I'm batman!" and it won't matter. The suit will be based upon what's already happened. If Sheen's attorney is right, WB doesn't dare to "go down swinging".

If it's a suit for $300 million and he won't move off it, they won't have a choice but to go down swinging. I'm not saying it will happen because of pride, but because Sheen wouldn't bring a reasonable negotiating position to the table. That's why I keep saying this comes down to Sheen. If he doesn't want to play ball, they'll lob every grenade they have his way. Ultimately he knows this; he'll come down - the question is how much.

And if you honestly don't think his conduct post-termination won't matter, you live under a rock. Jurors aren't deaf and they have memories; it's not admissible, but it is recalled.

Also, I don't know how it will shake out, but California's employment law will apply (in combination with contract law), despite your apparent disdain for them. Unless Sheen's attorney was fast asleep during employment negotiations, "At will" will not apply, despite Alnorth's mention of it, because there was a contract in place, and that contract will have set parameters for dismissal


I have no disdain for it. As I've noted, it's threshhold law that the employment contract will have gone well beyond. You've said as much in your post. In fact, that's exactly why I dismissed the 'at will' stuff; it just doesn't matter in the event an employment contract exists. It's like saying that the NFL minimum salary matters when you're negotiating Peyton Manning's deal - it doesn't. Nothing done here will be truly governed by Cali's law; the contract will have it all covered. Did you actually read what I wrote?

Finally, if WB knew that Sheen was already batshit crazy and/or doing coke binging or committing other felonies before signing onto the contract extension, Sheen's lawyer may have a good argument against enforcement of any penalty/punishment clauses tied to such activities, depending upon California law.

And there's where Sheen's lawyers will attempt to make hay - a waiver argument (I don't think estoppel would apply here, but I'm a little removed from that particular bit of learnin'; I may have the two reversed). If WB knew of his problems when they negotiated, then the 'base' level problems like his coke issue probably wouldn't pass. They'd essentially have to prove that conduct in addition to the stuff they already knew about (and didn't act upon) was a sufficient straw to break this particular camel's back.

But again - it all comes down to Sheen. Though I wonder if that contract has a fee-shifting provision in it. That would change the entire calculous. Most of them don't, but if there's a clause that says the prevailing party is entitled to attorneys fees from the loser, that would virtually guarantee the the suit doesn't even get filed, let alone litigated. Some states have that in their statutes as a matter of course (OK and Ark that I know of), but virtually all states allow you to contractually stipulate to it.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-08-2011, 12:13 PM
Pretty much the coolest thing ever:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vBrxYORs8UY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Superturtle
03-08-2011, 12:13 PM
http://cheezfailbooking.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/funny-facebook-fails-charlie-sheen-zinger.jpg

BigMeatballDave
03-08-2011, 12:17 PM
Pretty much the coolest thing ever:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vBrxYORs8UY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Evidently, Machete does text.

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2011, 12:28 PM
And if you honestly don't think his conduct post-termination won't matter, you live under a rock. Jurors aren't deaf and they have memories; it's not admissible, but it is recalled.


Dude, Look: I know you're a lawyer and live for this type of shit, but it's all just blather.

Just as in the Joe Satriani vs. Coldplay case we discussed in 2009. You thought that Joe had a great case and would win, etc., I disagreed because I know how this particular business works. Joe later dropped the lawsuit and is not entitled to any royalties generated by Coldplay.

In this case, there are far too many egos at stake but cooler heads will prevail. Trust me, the litigators don't want to sue Charlie Sheen, the studio execs don't want to sue Charlie Sheen and Chuck Lorre doesn't want to sue Charlie Sheen. He can talk all he wants but at the end of the day, he'll settle for what's due contractually and move on.

There are so many factors at play, including politics. None of these people want to "be the guy" that successfully sues Charlie Sheen because it would be a blackmark on their career. Who would want to work with that guy down the road if he becomes a producer or agent?

Furthermore, Rob Lowe is reportedly in deep negotiations to take over on the show. Rob Lowe is tight with the Sheen family and Charlie. Do you really think he'll take that gig if Charlie isn't duly compensated? It's not like he needs to the dough, either but I seriously doubt he's going to stab a friend in that back by taking over his show when his bud hasn't been paid.

From a legal standpoint, I'm sure that all of your points have merit. What's not factored in is the politics of the situation.

Just Passin' By
03-08-2011, 12:35 PM
If it's a suit for $300 million and he won't move off it, they won't have a choice but to go down swinging. I'm not saying it will happen because of pride, but because Sheen wouldn't bring a reasonable negotiating position to the table. That's why I keep saying this comes down to Sheen. If he doesn't want to play ball, they'll lob every grenade they have his way. Ultimately he knows this; he'll come down - the question is how much.

And if you honestly don't think his conduct post-termination won't matter, you live under a rock. Jurors aren't deaf and they have memories; it's not admissible, but it is recalled.

If they have grenades, as you put it, they'll be in the contract. Sheen's post-firing actions won't matter, unless it's in a hearing to get him committed. A judge who allows the post-firing actions to sway his ruling will be setting up a successful appeal, and no judge is going to want that to happen in a case like this.

I have no disdain for it. As I've noted, it's threshhold law that the employment contract will have gone well beyond. You've said as much in your post. In fact, that's exactly why I dismissed the 'at will' stuff; it just doesn't matter in the event an employment contract exists. It's like saying that the NFL minimum salary matters when you're negotiating Peyton Manning's deal - it doesn't. Nothing done here will be truly governed by Cali's law; the contract will have it all covered. Did you actually read what I wrote?

I read what you wrote. You were just being dismissive of Cali law, when it's precisely Cali law that governs. The contract doesn't hold up if it runs contrary to Cali law, after all. If your employer put in a clause that says "DJ must jump on the desk and act like a monkey", and that's illegal in your state of employment, that clause doesn't take precedence: the applicable state law does.

But again - it all comes down to Sheen. Though I wonder if that contract has a fee-shifting provision in it. That would change the entire calculous. Most of them don't, but if there's a clause that says the prevailing party is entitled to attorneys fees from the loser, that would virtually guarantee the the suit doesn't even get filed, let alone litigated. Some states have that in their statutes as a matter of course (OK and Ark that I know of), but virtually all states allow you to contractually stipulate to it.

I would expect that either WB will be absolutely confident of victory, or it will fold and settle for a pretty high number. Sheen's side has no reason to take a low number unless they are sure they can't win in court. Of course, high and low are relative, so the number isn't really important unless it's either close to zero or close to $300 million.

On a side note, I do find the notion of a blooper reel as evidence that Sheen was ga-ga to be pretty amusing, given that bloopers were popular enough to spawn shows replaying them. That would have to be one hell of a blooper reel to convince a judge.

DJ's left nut
03-08-2011, 12:39 PM
Dude, Look: I know you're a lawyer and live for this type of shit, but it's all just blather.

Just as in the Joe Satriani vs. Coldplay case we discussed in 2009. You thought that Joe had a great case and would win, etc., I disagreed because I know how this particular business works. Joe later dropped the lawsuit and is not entitled to any royalties generated by Coldplay.

In this case, there are far too many egos at stake but cooler heads will prevail. Trust me, the litigators don't want to sue Charlie Sheen, the studio execs don't want to sue Charlie Sheen and Chuck Lorre doesn't want to sue Charlie Sheen. He can talk all he wants but at the end of the day, he'll settle for what's due contractually and move on.

There are so many factors at play, including politics. None of these people want to "be the guy" that successfully sues Charlie Sheen because it would be a blackmark on their career. Who would want to work with that guy down the road if he becomes a producer or agent?

Furthermore, Rob Lowe is reportedly in deep negotiations to take over on the show. Rob Lowe is tight with the Sheen family and Charlie. Do you really think he'll take that gig if Charlie isn't duly compensated? It's not like he needs to the dough, either but I seriously doubt he's going to stab a friend in that back by taking over his show when his bud hasn't been paid.

From a legal standpoint, I'm sure that all of your points have merit. What's not factored in is the politics of the situation.

No, I knew they'd settle the Satriani case as well.

Everything settles unless one side is being unreasonable. I don't see that guy being in the WB camp. That's why I keep saying this comes down to Sheen.

That's not an interesting conversation, though. The conversation comes in at "what if they don't settle" which has been the crux of 'debate' such as it was here, and was certainly the case in the Satriani thread.

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2011, 12:46 PM
No, I knew they'd settle the Satriani case as well.

Dude, there was no settlement of any kind. Satriani dropped the case and there was no exchange of money, nor any adjustments to the copyrights.

Everything settles unless one side is being unreasonable. I don't see that guy being in the WB camp. That's why I keep saying this comes down to Sheen.

That's not an interesting conversation, though. The conversation comes in at "what if they don't settle" which has been the crux of 'debate' such as it was here, and was certainly the case in the Satriani thread.

I understand how you may find it interesting from a legal standpoint and any other business, I'm sure your opinion and the results of the case would be fairly accurate.

But this business is very small and very insular. People really don't want to hurt each other financially because it could cause repercussions for their career, especially since it's such a small community.

jettio
03-08-2011, 01:03 PM
My opinion of Sheen is that his publicity campaign was motivated by his desperation for cash to pay his bills.

His interview for NBC showed that he was in panic mode about money.

He is not an ideal client because he is too unstable and too desperate for the money. If he does not get a movie deal right away, he will not have much leverage in negotiating a settlement amount.

Even if he has stopped using drugs, his mind is still messed up from the drug use. He did not need to go on the radio and badmouth his executive producer and his effort at damage control has created more damage.

Dude does not really have that much talent. I would be surprised to see him getting many good gigs in the future. People are laughing at him, not with him.

DJ's left nut
03-08-2011, 01:12 PM
Dude, there was no settlement of any kind. Satriani dropped the case and there was no exchange of money, nor any adjustments to the copyrights.


Since when?

Unless you know something that the rest of the world doesn't, the case was dismissed pursuant to settlement (per the pleadings). The terms of the settlement were not released, but unless there's a joint/mutual release in the face of a counter-claim, the plaintiff wouldn't have just dismissed the claim without getting anything back.

He damn sure wouldn't have dismissed it with prejudice (as was the case here), but rather without prejudice in order to maintain his claim. The fact that he dismissed it with prejudice confirms that it was done pursuant to a settlement agreement. Yes, money absolutely changed hands, even if the copyrights didn't.

The Satriani case worked out almost exactly like I said it would. Ditto the Lohan case and likely this one. These things settle unless someone's being an idiot. But they settle because of money. They're no different than employment cases in NYC or motor vehicle accidents in Kansas City. There's nothing vague and mysterious about a case-calculation: if it's a jury question (as this one would be), your odds are generally calculable at no better than 60/40 no matter how sure you are. In that event, especially if you're facing liability of your own in the form of a counter-claim, your suit just isn't worth a ton from the standpoint of a pure case-calculation. As such, the parties settle.

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2011, 01:56 PM
Since when?

Unless you know something that the rest of the world doesn't, the case was dismissed pursuant to settlement (per the pleadings).

First off, it was implied that there was a settlement because the case was dismissed. The only thing that was reported was that Coldplay covered all of the legal costs for both sides.

----------------------------------------------------- Joe got some good pub out of the deal, which occurred shortly after the release of the Chickenfoot record.

Once again, I'm not dismissing the fact that you're a lawyer but you seem unwilling to listen to anyone else's opinion in the real world, which is ironic considering you accused me of being obtuse in an earlier thread.

DJ's left nut
03-08-2011, 02:40 PM
First off, it was implied that there was a settlement because the case was dismissed. The only thing that was reported was that Coldplay covered all of the legal costs for both sides.

----------------------------------------------------- Joe got some good pub out of the deal, which occurred shortly after the release of the Chickenfoot record.

Once again, I'm not dismissing the fact that you're a lawyer but you seem unwilling to listen to anyone else's opinion in the real world, which is ironic considering you accused me of being obtuse in an earlier thread.

Not at all, I'm simply applying a different definition of 'the real world'...

Your 'real world' tends to be a California soap opera version where everybody knows everyone and doesn't want to 'burn bridges'. It's full of clandestine meetings and wink/nod dealings that are in some way related to a Hollywood culture. And ultimately, that may play a role in it. But what I'm trying to say is that the outcome you're suggesting is the outcome in every single one of these cases, including those in the actual 'real world' outside of Hollywood.

Take away Chuck Lorre and the case still settles. Take away the fact that Charlie Sheen's manager works with another studio boss and the case still settles. Take California out of this mix in its entirety and all you've done is take a couple zeros off the figures involved. It's ultimately not a matter of intrigue and mystery - it's money with pride mixed in. Congratulations - you've just laid out the foundation for 90% of all civil suits in this country.

I'm not ignoring your viewpoint here, I'm simply discounting it as a bunch of relative truisms. Those which weren't mere truisms have been backed by the same sketchy evidence and inferences you're castigating others for. And it seems odd to me that you came into this thread guns ablaze and have since backed off the position; meanwhile you have continued to condescend to the folks that took the viewpoint that perhaps this wasn't going to be Charlie setting his terms and ruling the world.

(And there's no way Satriani dismissed that suit w/ prejudice if money didn't change hands; not that early in the process. His atty fees were a pittance to that point. If he thought he had no case, he'd have still just dismissed without prejudice and left the sword hanging out there. He got paid.)

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2011, 03:27 PM
Not at all, I'm simply applying a different definition of 'the real world'...

Yes, I realize that cases that happen within the entertainment business are different and have very different circumstances for those involved, which is why I've stated throughout this thread that there will be a settlement. I've also attempted to shed light on the process and why suing in a court of law is extremely unlikely to happen.

I know you're young and I hope that you become a successful lawyer. But it seems odd to me that you become involved in nearly every legal thread, regardless of whether or not it's your area of expertise.

I have several friends that are lawyers outside of the entertainment business and when these topics come up at dinner parties or a night on the town or just hanging out, they always refrain from speculating because it's not their area of expertise and they're pretty much unaware how the entertainment business operates. They're successful in their own worlds of real estate, commercial and corporate real estate, corporate mergers and private equity but when it comes to IP and the ent business, most won't even venture a guess.


(And there's no way Satriani dismissed that suit w/ prejudice if money didn't change hands; not that early in the process. His atty fees were a pittance to that point. If he thought he had no case, he'd have still just dismissed without prejudice and left the sword hanging out there. He got paid.)

I'm not at liberty to comment, which is why I removed my initial comment earlier.

DJ's left nut
03-08-2011, 03:42 PM
Yes, I realize that cases that happen within the entertainment business are different and have very different circumstances for those involved, which is why I've stated throughout this thread that there will be a settlement. I've also attempted to shed light on the process and why suing in a court of law is extremely unlikely to happen.

I know you're young and I hope that you become a successful lawyer. But it seems odd to me that you become involved in nearly every legal thread, regardless of whether or not it's your area of expertise.

I have several friends that are lawyers outside of the entertainment business and when these topics come up at dinner parties or a night on the town or just hanging out, they always refrain from speculating because it's not their area of expertise and they're pretty much unaware how the entertainment business operates. They're successful in their own worlds of real estate, commercial and corporate real estate, corporate mergers and private equity but when it comes to IP and the ent business, most won't even venture a guess.



Civil litigation is civil litigation.

Facts change. Figures change.

But the basic foundation of it is almost always the same. And when you're operating from the outside and wondering how the case is going to play out, you're able to substitute the judgment of the lawyers on the respective sides (i.e. assume rationality by the actors). Usually when that is the case, the 'law' questions are pretty cut and dry and it comes down to fact questions.

Fact questions are to be determined by a 'reasonable person' standard 9 times out of 10. Any old dipshit is qualified to speculate as to what that outcome may be, by its very definition.

"How the entertainment business operates" is absolutely irrelevant when you're in court. And as I've conceded, it's not going to go to trial, it'll settle. Ultimately the reasons are always nebulous, but you can hardly claim dominion over what those reasons may be and piss all over anyone that suggest otherwise.

DaneMcCloud
03-08-2011, 03:52 PM
you can hardly claim dominion over what those reasons may be and piss all over anyone that suggest otherwise.

Well, I can and I did.

:D

The fact remains that winning a musical copyright infringement case in 2011 is next to impossible, if not outright impossible.

The difference between our viewpoints is that you speak in legal hypothesis and I speak from experience in this business.

Everything you've stated in this thread and the Satch thread could happen. But everything I've stated is about why it won't happen.

DJ's left nut
03-08-2011, 03:55 PM
Well, I can and I did.

:D

The fact remains that winning a musical copyright infringement case in 2011 is next to impossible, if not outright impossible.

The difference between our viewpoints is that you speak in legal hypothesis and I speak from experience in this business.

Everything you've stated in this thread and the Satch thread could happen. But everything I've stated is about why it won't happen.

Absolutely. I've noted all along what will happen, but it's a discussion board.

There's no discussion in "the case will settle". Yeah, we know it'll settle, they always do. You have your 'entertainment' based reasons as to why, I've suggested why they will from the standpoint of strict civil litigation (and again, these are elements that exist in essentially all threatened litigation).

They're not mutually exclusive. Then again, I don't believe I'm the one claiming them to be...

SNR
03-08-2011, 07:04 PM
Q: How much cocaine has Charlie Sheen done this year?
A: Enough to kill two and a half men

FAX
03-09-2011, 07:03 AM
ROFL

The latest episode of Sheen's Korner is classic. I encourage all to exit their muck-holes and enjoy some magic sizzle.

My best guess is that his new merchandising deal will net him millions. I can't tell if he is akin to a rambling, mentally-deranged vagrant or the profit of our times. He is on a freaking roll.

FAX

Swanman
03-09-2011, 07:15 AM
I am wondering what this firing will do to his revenue stream from Two and a Half Men syndication rights. I know every member of the Friends cast netted assloads of money from re-runs of their show.

When exactly does he start winning anyway? He was fired from his $2 million/week job and just had his children forcibly removed from him. I guess I am with the trolls.

13and3
03-09-2011, 07:51 AM
Wow, if Charlie Sheen the Coke Machine is winning then I must be loosing.

Bill Lundberg
03-09-2011, 07:53 AM
ROFL

The latest episode of Sheen's Korner is classic. I encourage all to exit their muck-holes and enjoy some magic sizzle.

My best guess is that his new merchandising deal will net him millions. I can't tell if he is akin to a rambling, mentally-deranged vagrant or the profit of our times. He is on a freaking roll.

FAX

ROFLROFLROFL

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2yMDuBB_0L0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Bill Lundberg
03-10-2011, 09:45 AM
<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" id="ordie_player_bfb12aea47" height="328" width="512">



<embed flashvars="key=bfb12aea47" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" quality="high" src="http://player.ordienetworks.com/flash/fodplayer.swf" name="ordie_player_bfb12aea47" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="328" width="512"></object>Charlie Sheen's Winning Recipes (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/bfb12aea47/charlie-sheen-s-winning-recipes) from Charlie Sheen (http://www.funnyordie.com/charlie_sheen)

Over-Head
03-10-2011, 09:53 AM
I'm truly beginning to think Charlie is about a half bubble off plumb and needs a bit of help:shake:

DaneMcCloud
03-10-2011, 10:06 AM
I am wondering what this firing will do to his revenue stream from Two and a Half Men syndication rights. I know every member of the Friends cast netted assloads of money from re-runs of their show.


Nothing. Actually, the cast of Friends earned far more per episode than they did from syndication.

The revenue stream from syndication (or network airing) is pre-determined by the SAG contract. As long as a program is airing, the actors receive residuals.

gblowfish
03-10-2011, 10:28 AM
Charlie Sheen for President in 2012!

DaneMcCloud
03-10-2011, 11:01 AM
I'm truly beginning to think Charlie is about a half bubble off plumb and needs a bit of help:shake:

Actually, I'm beginning to think (and have for some time) that it's a well-executed act by an actor.

If you watch the latest episode of "Sheen's Korner", he's clearly reading a pre-written script. He's not rambling off the top of his head, he's acting.

I don't know where he's going with this but I don't think it's anything other than an act at this point.

Bill Lundberg
03-10-2011, 11:08 AM
Actually, I'm beginning to think (and have for some time) that it's a well-executed act by an actor.

If you watch the latest episode of "Sheen's Korner", he's clearly reading a pre-written script. He's not rambling off the top of his head, he's acting.

I don't know where he's going with this but I don't think it's anything other than an act at this point.

I agree. I'm very interested to see where this leads. My guess is it leads to #WINNING

Tribal Warfare
03-10-2011, 11:16 AM
Actually, I'm beginning to think (and have for some time) that it's a well-executed act by an actor.

If you watch the latest episode of "Sheen's Korner", he's clearly reading a pre-written script. He's not rambling off the top of his head, he's acting.

I don't know where he's going with this but I don't think it's anything other than an act at this point.

personally, I think he's just having fun and it's nothing self-destructive . He's just having a ball with it.

tymania
03-10-2011, 11:22 AM
this

DaneMcCloud
03-10-2011, 11:29 AM
http://www.tmz.com/2011/03/10/charlie-sheen-files-lawsuit-warner-bros-two-and-a-half-men-sues-chuck-lorre-crew-salary-8-episodes/

Sheen Sues Warner Bros. & Lorre for $100 Million

TMZ has learned ... Charlie Sheen has just filed a lawsuit against Warner Bros. and Chuck Lorre, and he's not only demanding he get paid for the 8 scrapped "Two and a Half Men" episodes, he's also suing on behalf of the cast and crew ... and the suit is for $100,000,000 plus punitive damages.

In a scathing preamble, legal pit bull Marty Singer writes in the lawsuit, "Chuck Lorre, one of the richest men in television who is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, believes himself to be so wealthy and powerful that he can unilaterally decide to take money away from the dedicated cast and crew of the popular television series, 'Two and a Half Men,' in order to serve his own ego and self-interest, and make the star of the Series the scapegoat for Lorre's own conduct."

Singer alleges the cancellation is based on "Warner Bros. capitulating to Lorre's egotistical desire to punish Mr. Sheen ..."

Singer alleges there was a conspiracy between Lorre and Warner Bros. to blame Charlie for the cancellation.

Singer tells TMZ, the suit is also filed on behalf of the cast and crew, based on what's called a "private attorney general's statute." To view this in the lawsuit, see page 21, paragraphs 70 - 75.

And this is interesting ... Singer alleges the decision to cancel the 8 episodes was made BEFORE Sheen criticized Lorre, because Lorre allegedly wanted out so he could work on his other shows -- and because he hated Sheen.

The suit points out Warner Bros. renegotiated Charlie's contract when he was facing felony charges in Aspen -- charges Warners thought would land Charlie in jail.

Singer claims they fired Charlie when he was sick, and that's a violation of State and federal law.

Donger
03-10-2011, 11:31 AM
Singer claims they fired Charlie when he was sick, and that's a violation of State and federal law.

Is that accurate?

DaneMcCloud
03-10-2011, 11:35 AM
Is that accurate?


I believe that could be considered "Wrongful Termination". I'm sure that's covered in the SAG agreement as well.

I'm sure one of the many lawyers here on the 'Planet will chime in with far more detail.

Kerberos
03-10-2011, 11:37 AM
http://www.tmz.com/2011/03/10/charlie-sheen-files-lawsuit-warner-bros-two-and-a-half-men-sues-chuck-lorre-crew-salary-8-episodes/

Sheen Sues Warner Bros. & Lorre for $100 Million

TMZ has learned ... Charlie Sheen has just filed a lawsuit against Warner Bros. and Chuck Lorre, and he's not only demanding he get paid for the 8 scrapped "Two and a Half Men" episodes, he's also suing on behalf of the cast and crew ... and the suit is for $100,000,000 plus punitive damages.

In a scathing preamble, legal pit bull Marty Singer writes in the lawsuit, "Chuck Lorre, one of the richest men in television who is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, believes himself to be so wealthy and powerful that he can unilaterally decide to take money away from the dedicated cast and crew of the popular television series, 'Two and a Half Men,' in order to serve his own ego and self-interest, and make the star of the Series the scapegoat for Lorre's own conduct."

Singer alleges the cancellation is based on "Warner Bros. capitulating to Lorre's egotistical desire to punish Mr. Sheen ..."

Singer alleges there was a conspiracy between Lorre and Warner Bros. to blame Charlie for the cancellation.

Singer tells TMZ, the suit is also filed on behalf of the cast and crew, based on what's called a "private attorney general's statute." To view this in the lawsuit, see page 21, paragraphs 70 - 75.

And this is interesting ... Singer alleges the decision to cancel the 8 episodes was made BEFORE Sheen criticized Lorre, because Lorre allegedly wanted out so he could work on his other shows -- and because he hated Sheen.

The suit points out Warner Bros. renegotiated Charlie's contract when he was facing felony charges in Aspen -- charges Warners thought would land Charlie in jail.

Singer claims they fired Charlie when he was sick, and that's a violation of State and federal law.


Good

I hope he gets everything and then some.

Donger
03-10-2011, 11:38 AM
I believe that could be considered "Wrongful Termination". I'm sure that's covered in the SAG agreement as well.

I'm sure one of the many lawyers here on the 'Planet will chime in with far more detail.

What "sickness" did he have?

DaneMcCloud
03-10-2011, 11:41 AM
What "sickness" did he have?

I imagine they're referring to his rehab stint, which is considered a sickness.

OnTheWarpath58
03-10-2011, 11:44 AM
ROFLROFLROFL

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2yMDuBB_0L0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

THROW 'EM THE HEATER, RICKY.

Von Dumbass
03-10-2011, 12:00 PM
#Fastball; Torpedo away... You corporate Trolls were warned. And now you've been served! chttps://twitter.com/charliesheen/status/45920149869572098

DaneMcCloud
03-10-2011, 12:07 PM
http://twitter.com/#!/HarveyLevinTMZ

interesting legal theory marty singer has suing on behalf of cast and crew. i can't believe this case will ever go to trial. it will settle.

Fat Elvis
03-10-2011, 12:08 PM
I imagine they're referring to his rehab stint, which is considered a sickness.

Charlie must of forgotten that he had cured himself in a nanosecond with his mind.

suzzer99
03-10-2011, 01:16 PM
Here's how they continue without him. Start the new season at Charlie Harper's funeral where someone more creative than I come up with a strange way to die. Cut to an attorney's office where Allan finds out that Charlie left everything to a hooker, better yet, a porn star and a pot magazine cover model.

Down and out Allan has no idea where to go. Then Evelyn mentions that Allan has another brother - a child she gave up for adoption before Charlie and Allan. Allan sets out to find his long lost brother only to find he's an older richer version of Charlie.

After that its a crap shoot on whether or not the writers can keep it funny.

How about if he just stays and lives with the hooker? Maybe Charlie's will spelled out that Allan can continue living there, and neither one of them can afford to move out.

And it's not one of those golden-hearted movie hookers. It's a girl who runs a volume business.

I like it. Lets write a new show together.

I love it. Also the hooker (but lets make her an ex-porn-star) has an adorable set of wise-cracking 5-year old twin girls that constantly pester Jon Cryer and follow the kid around.

The ex-porn-star is clean now but has a lot of stories and innuendos obviously. Eventually her and Jon Cryer could hook up for much hilarity. If Lindsey Lohan was just a little older, she could play the porn star. Hmmm... who would be good? I'm thinking blond, over-tan, raspy voice, checkered past IRL.

Lol Ginger Lynn would be epic. Can Paris Hilton act?

Frazod
03-10-2011, 01:20 PM
I may be a couple of days behind here, but did Cryer ever respond to Charlie throwing him under the bus?

DaneMcCloud
03-10-2011, 01:42 PM
I may be a couple of days behind here, but did Cryer ever respond to Charlie throwing him under the bus?

The reason the cast and crew haven't responded or contacted Charlie is because they fear for their jobs.

Just Passin' By
03-10-2011, 01:54 PM
I may be a couple of days behind here, but did Cryer ever respond to Charlie throwing him under the bus?

The last I heard was that Holland Taylor is the only one of the cast to comment publicly.

http://www.limelife.com/blog-entry/Holland-Taylor-Supports-Her-TV-Son-Charlie-Sheen/122541.html

Frazod
03-10-2011, 01:57 PM
The reason the cast and crew haven't responded or contacted Charlie is because they fear for their jobs.

I would imagine they're probably scared of him showing up at their homes with a flame thrower and an entorage of angry hookers.

BigMeatballDave
03-10-2011, 02:02 PM
Charlie suing for 100 mil http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/sheen-files-suit-against-lorre-and-warner/

Bill Lundberg
03-10-2011, 02:11 PM
Charlie suing for 100 mil http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/sheen-files-suit-against-lorre-and-warner/

The hell you say!

DaneMcCloud
03-10-2011, 07:42 PM
Charlie's taking his show on the road!

http://www.ticketmaster.com/artist/1568566

DaneMcCloud
03-10-2011, 07:42 PM
And Jon Cryer finally responds:

http://video.teamcoco.com/video/conan.jsp?oid=246049

Bill Lundberg
03-10-2011, 07:47 PM
Charlie's taking his show on the road!

http://www.ticketmaster.com/artist/1568566

BRILLIANT

Deberg_1990
03-10-2011, 07:55 PM
Jon "Charlie Sheen saved my career from oblivion" Cryer.

BigMeatballDave
03-10-2011, 08:58 PM
Jon "Charlie Sheen saved my career from oblivion" Cryer.True. However, one could argue Chuck
Lorre saved Charlie's, as well. He made more than a few shitty films.

DaneMcCloud
03-10-2011, 09:00 PM
True. However, one could argue Chuck
Lorre saved Charlie's, as well. He made more than a few shitty films.

The show was created for Charlie Sheen. CBS president Les Moonves stated specifically that if Charlie wouldn't sign on for the pilot, the show was a no-go.

Furthermore, every actor, regardless of their stature, makes bad films.

Travolta made a career of it before Pulp Fiction, as have many, many others.

BigMeatballDave
03-10-2011, 09:06 PM
The show was created for Charlie Sheen. CBS president Les Moonves stated specifically that if Charlie wouldn't sign on for the pilot, the show was a no-go.

Furthermore, every actor, regardless of their stature, makes bad films.

Travolta made a career of it before Pulp Fiction, as have many, many others.I dont disagree. Fact is, Charlie Sheens career before Men was mediocre at best.

stevieray
03-10-2011, 09:09 PM
Travolta made a career of it before Pulp Fiction, as have many, many others.
wait a minute, you didn't like bud and sissy?

kysirsoze
03-10-2011, 09:18 PM
And Jon Cryer finally responds:

http://video.teamcoco.com/video/conan.jsp?oid=246049

That's hardly a response, not that we're really owed one, I guess.

DaneMcCloud
03-10-2011, 09:22 PM
I dont disagree. Fact is, Charlie Sheens career before Men was mediocre at best.

LMAO

Mediocre?

How many "mediocre" actors get to work with Clint Eastwood? How many "mediocre" actors rescue a long running TV show (Spin City) from the dead?

How many "mediocre" actors starred in such movies as Wall Street, Major League, The Three Musketeers, and Eight Men Out?

DaneMcCloud
03-10-2011, 09:22 PM
That's hardly a response, not that we're really owed one, I guess.

LMAO

It was a joke. Did you really expect a response?

DaneMcCloud
03-10-2011, 09:23 PM
wait a minute, you didn't like bud and sissy?

Oh, Urban Cowboy? Sure! But it was a long time between hit movies for Mr. Travolta.

Tribal Warfare
03-10-2011, 09:27 PM
LMAO

Mediocre?

How many "mediocre" actors get to work with Clint Eastwood? How many "mediocre" actors rescue a long running TV show (Spin City) from the dead?

How many "mediocre" actors starred in such movies as Wall Street, Major League, The Three Musketeers, and Eight Men Out?

don't forget Platoon

DaneMcCloud
03-10-2011, 09:30 PM
I dont disagree. Fact is, Charlie Sheens career before Men was mediocre at best.

"Mediocre Career" is Jon Cryer.

BigMeatballDave
03-10-2011, 09:31 PM
don't forget PlatoonThat was his only great movie. The vast majority of his movies were shit.

BigMeatballDave
03-10-2011, 09:32 PM
"Mediocre Career" is Jon Cryer.He has a career? Pretty in Pink and Men?

DaneMcCloud
03-10-2011, 09:34 PM
That was his only great movie. The vast majority of his movies were shit.

Oh, come on.

How was Hot Shots shit? Major League? Eight Men Out? Wall Street? The Three Musketeers? The Rookie?

If I were an actor (and I'm not) I'd be thrilled with starring in those films.

suzzer99
03-10-2011, 09:40 PM
Police are raiding his house right now according to TMZ.

kysirsoze
03-10-2011, 09:43 PM
LMAO

It was a joke. Did you really expect a response?

:shrug: Thought he might say something since Sheen is starting to get support from other co-stars making Cryer look a little worse. As I said, he doesn't owe us a response or anything. He could have tried to set the record straight, but I understand wanting to stay above the fray a little.

kysirsoze
03-10-2011, 09:44 PM
Police are raiding his house right now according to TMZ.

I will laugh my ass off if they don't find anything.

suzzer99
03-10-2011, 09:46 PM
One of his ex-wives accused him of looking at child porn. That could be bad.

BigMeatballDave
03-10-2011, 09:47 PM
Oh, come on.

How was Hot Shots shit? Major League? Eight Men Out? Wall Street? The Three Musketeers? The Rookie?

If I were an actor (and I'm not) I'd be thrilled with starring in those films.Major League was good. Wall Street was OK.

kysirsoze
03-10-2011, 09:48 PM
One of his ex-wives accused him of looking at child porn. That could be bad.

Someone who would marry Charlie Sheen might also be insane.

DaneMcCloud
03-10-2011, 09:48 PM
UPDATE: Someone at the house tells us, one of the reasons the cops are there is because Charlie allegedly violated the temporary restraining order Brooke Mueller obtained ... which prohibits Charlie from possessing weapons.

----------------------------------

It's nice to know that our police force will respond to shit like this but not when renters in our canyon have parties until 4am while blasting music that keeps us all awake.

DaneMcCloud
03-10-2011, 09:48 PM
Major League was good. Wall Street was OK.

Eight Men Out was amazing. Have you not seen it?

kysirsoze
03-10-2011, 09:50 PM
Major League was good. Wall Street was OK.

In spite of Sheen.

BIG_DADDY
03-10-2011, 09:50 PM
One of his ex-wives accused him of looking at child porn. That could be bad.

Whatever. There is a lot of money on the line here. He has more pussy than he can handle but he is checking out child porn? THat's a great thing to say in hopes that they will find anything to empower yourself. LAPD is corrupt as hell. This is all bad.