Kelsey Grammer to return as Frasier in reboot of hit comedy - Actor is ‘gleefully anticipating’ the return of the comedy, which is being rebooted after 17 years

Frasier was good. The Niles and Daphne stuff got a little old after five years, and the last few seasons where Frasier was just desperate and pathetic were kinda depressing. Overall, though, you got maybe seven good seasons of solid comedy.


Don't know what they possibly have planned for the reboot, but if Will & Grace could pull it off, Frasier certainly can.
yeah later eps sometimes had some fun, like I think the time they tried to smuggle Daphne across the border was late into the show, but yeah Daphne and Niles hooking up is a clean spot to draw the line of things going downhill
 
I thought both episodes were okay to mediocre, not even close to the quality of the original show. Main criticism is the writing and the over-acting. Everyone is chewing the scenery here. Kelsey Grammar has more talent than every other person on set put together, but even he can't sustain lines that feel alternatively like they were written by college students or your parents.

Black lady ended up being my favorite character of the new bunch. I expected the writer's to opt for a sassy negress - so hot right now - so I was pleasantly surprised they made her stuffy. British man is this show's Niles, a peer for Frasier, but he's not very funny and him and Frasier lack chemistry you'd expect in "old friends".

The Latina roommate character wasn't really necessary but she's mostly inoffensive. Feels like the writers threw her in to max out the diversity points and for easy "new parent" humor. Most annoying character is the nephew. He's basically a copy of Sheldon from bazinga-show (even has an eidetic memory) but the actor doesn't do a good job at making him feel believably awkward.

Finally there's Freddy. The biggest disappointment of the entire show. They didn't get the original actor to come back - fine. But the new actor doesn't look anything like Freddy (or Frasier or Lilith), and his new characterization is one you've seen a dozen times before. They've made him into a typical CBS sitcom male lead - optimistic, stupid, "relatable". This wouldn't be so bad if he was a side character like the others, but the father-son dynamic is likely to be the axis of the entire reboot. They should've named this series something else, because like nu-Freddy, it's not worthy of the Frasier name. 3/10
 
They really, really need to get the old cast back and ditch... just about everyone other than Frasier and David. David is literally just a young Niles, but more autistic. Fredrick is a cuck, Eve is Current Year Girl™, and the two Harvard people are Sassy Black Woman™ and Gay British Guy™.

Shit, Roseanne did it, she got back everyone and even threw in pro-Trump lines. She later got ousted and her show hijacked, but she did make a whole new season of her old show that was actually really good. And Lord knows Johnny Galecki and John Goodman had to be a hell of a lot harder to get back than anyone on Frasier.
 
I think it's okay. I thought the Table Hockey dinner scene was cute. I hope the show focuses more on Fraiser teaching classes at Harvard rather than relationship drama.
 
Utterly stupid idea.

Why on earth would you even want to do a sitcom in this day and age?

I know right? When current year idea of a comedian is indistinguishable of that of an angry preacher (thanks, Carlin, you cunt, I hope you rot in hell) what space is left for a comedy?

Specifically, a comedy by a white, elitist, snooty, male.

You just know how it's going to play, don't you?
 
Its weird to see Frasier in a series with such a sitcom-y tone. Cheers and Frasier both had a very specific style to them. They were sitcoms, sure, but they often felt like stageplays featuring lowbrow comedy written by highbrow comedy writers. The reboot feels like the cheapest and most tropey sitcom from the early 2000s. Its somehow worse than Big Bang Theory.

Premiere is here. Paramount also put the entire first season of the original show on youtube.

 
I can't help but think however any reboot in this era will lay the name of the character and its legacy in wokedom, so by principle I'd have to say this isn't a good thing.
One things for sure, the tossed salads and scrambled eggs they're talking about in the outro song?

Way different nowadays.
 
So I've watched the first two episodes. The first episode is okay, mostly setting stuff up, with a nice tribute to John Mahoney who played Frasier's dad.

The second episode was genuinely funny and felt like an episode of the old show. Early days, but worth checking out so far.
The first episode is up on YouTube.

It's "nice". Which is the best thing you can say about it. Funny at moments, but it felt like something that people expected Frasier to be, not what the series actually was.

The tribute to John Mahoney was kind of expected and white appropriate, in this day and age, I can't help but feeling cynical about it. Was it really a tribute, or was it something the writers did because people think they need to feel a certain way about things? (See also: the reaction to seeing the ghost of Egon in Ghostbusters: Afterlife. No one will convince me that they were ever that nostalgic for Harold Ramis.)

The situation with Eve and John: "How are we ever going to tell you Dad about this?" Umm, it's really simple? When Freddy and Eve are angsty about telling Frasier about John, it was fairly overwrought, like John really IS Frasier's grandson. If he wasn't, it should have been pretty easy to say. The whole Freddy and Eve thing was overly complicated for no reason.

"Money! Lots of money!" So...Frasier is extremely rich because the plot needs him to be? Not that money was ever a particular talking point in the original series, but it didn't feel like Frasier was so exceptionally affluent that he could buy an entire building in Boston.
 
Money! Lots of money!" So...Frasier is extremely rich because the plot needs him to be?
Remember canonically he's just spent the last 20 years being a TV star. Him being rich tracks fine.

First two episodes were...well just OK. It has potential I think, but they need to lean more on the older style than the new type of comedy. Biggest surprise for me was Nicholas Lyndhurst, who is absolutely unconvincing. Everything else I've seen him in he's been great, but playing posh doesn't seem to be in his bones.
 
The reboot feels like the cheapest and most tropey sitcom from the early 2000s. Its somehow worse than Big Bang Theory.
It's written by people who grew up with it, but who don't actually understand what made it work.

Having fans work on a show can be a double-edged sword, which should be easy to figure out from reading fanfiction. At their very best, they can crank out masterpieces, but those masterpieces are few and far between and require an enormous talent. At their worst, they produce something worthy of admiration for just how terrible it is and can flip right back around to masterpiece. Most of them are mediocre in both intellect and talent, and so they produce nothing but tropey, stock pablum that mashes together elements of things they're previously consumed, none of which they fully understood. Might as well have the show written by machine learning algos.

Biggest surprise for me was Nicholas Lyndhurst, who is absolutely unconvincing. Everything else I've seen him in he's been great, but playing posh doesn't seem to be in his bones.
Figures the Americans would massively miscast someone like that. "Oh he's English, they're all posh, make him a professor!" I don't know why he went along with it. I guess he was probably happy to get a role that wasn't just a poorly disguised clone of Rodney.
 
Its weird to see Frasier in a series with such a sitcom-y tone. Cheers and Frasier both had a very specific style to them. They were sitcoms, sure, but they often felt like stageplays featuring lowbrow comedy written by highbrow comedy writers. The reboot feels like the cheapest and most tropey sitcom from the early 2000s. Its somehow worse than Big Bang Theory.

Premiere is here. Paramount also put the entire first season of the original show on youtube.

That's exactly how I feel about it. A few years ago I went to a play called The Play That Goes Wrong. Watching it just felt like I was watching an episode of Frasier. This new show just feels like all the other crappy multi-cam shows that's come out in the last few years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: teriyakiburns
The British guy isn't gay, they explicitly stated he has four kids.
Oscar Wilde had two; British men are gays who reluctantly have babies to create more gay men. I feel like what they're trying to do is go against trope with him, like "here's a stuffy British guy" and have the misdirect of "wait, he drinks too much and is lecherous? How scandalous!!!" If that's it, then the casting makes sense, and it's also dumb because no one thinks the British are refined anymore, we've all seen the Jimmy Saville documentary.

It's not a good show apart from Kelsey Grammer, and because of his politics they won't be able to get any of the old cast back. "I'm busy" and "I don't want to play that character anymore", alright, do a cameo at least. The old show was a series of farces based on chemistry between the cast. You could take a classic episode like "The Dinner Party" and give it to a different set of great actors and it wouldn't be as good because it's not that particular set of people who played off each other so well. Frasier without Niles is like Malone without Stockton, to keep the similies in the 90s.

And there was nothing that ever made you think that tubby little private school baseball nosebleed science nerd cucked Goth Freddy would get to Harvard and say, "I don't fit in, I'm way too working class for these guys." I get that they wanted to do the same fathers 'n' sons be different theme as the original, but that's so not Freddy. Also, it was Frasier helping his father because of his disability from getting shot as a cop; here it's Frasier helping his son, whose disability is...moderate poverty?
 
It's written by people who grew up with it, but who don't actually understand what made it work.
There is at least one previous writer working on the show - Bob Daily - who was a writer on the old show and is writing the next episode.

And there was nothing that ever made you think that tubby little private school baseball nosebleed science nerd cucked Goth Freddy would get to Harvard and say, "I don't fit in, I'm way too working class for these guys." I get that they wanted to do the same fathers 'n' sons be different theme as the original, but that's so not Freddy. Also, it was Frasier helping his father because of his disability from getting shot as a cop; here it's Frasier helping his son, whose disability is...moderate poverty?

After losing his father, I can at least buy that Frasier wants to be closer to his son before time runs out for him.

I'll say this for Frasier. It's not nearly as bad as the fucking Night Court reboot.
 
There is at least one previous writer working on the show - Bob Daily - who was a writer on the old show and is writing the next episode.



After losing his father, I can at least buy that Frasier wants to be closer to his son before time runs out for him.

I'll say this for Frasier. It's not nearly as bad as the fucking Night Court reboot.
Yeah, that Night Court sequel is why I think Hollywood can't course correct. Even if they tone down the SJW elements, they still aren't funny or talented enough to be as good as the original run and it's not for a lack of trying.
 
Back