Why Charlie And Not Mel?

Charlie Sheen, who showed up on Jimmy Kimmel last night and planted a wet one on Kimmel’s lips, has been meeting with Fox execs and supposedly has his old network boss, Les Moonves, ready to welcome him back to “Two and a Half Men.” In other words, Charlie will be back on a regular show and depositing hefty paychecks faster than you can say “Platoon.” So why can Sheen insult Jews, abuse women, and generally go into nonstop media madness and still emerge winningly but Mel Gibson, who has a similar history, cannot? Is it really another case of not the money but the money? Is it that Charlie makes millions for a media multi-national (Viacom) but Mel’s biggest hits (“The Passion of the Christ”) mostly circumvented the studio machine? Why is Mel still a pariah?

2 Comments to “Why Charlie And Not Mel?”

  1. These two bohonks bore my tits off, and they can both kiss my entire ass. I want nothing to do with any of their “output,” which, as far as I’m concerned, best compares with fecal matter.

  2. Mel has had 2 incidents in like 30 years of being a celebrity and both times were under extreme conditions – one, drunk and two, in the middle of a massive private fight.

    Charlie has a well documented and long history of abuse but is loved.

    Definitely because Hollywood execs didn’t get a piece of the Passion pie…

Leave a Comment