And after that comes the Frasier in Prison series. It's grittier, so Frasier will finally learn the real meaning of tossed salads and scrambled eggs.
Frasier revival
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
"And the way your dad died...impaled by that falling radio antenna."
"No symbolism to unpack there."
"Mamma Mia."
David is going to cause significant collateral damage.
Yup. Frasier has re-entered the building.
This is a revival I never contemplated happening, but I'm glad it did. It's a bridge to a happier time.
"No symbolism to unpack there."
"Mamma Mia."
David is going to cause significant collateral damage.
Yup. Frasier has re-entered the building.
This is a revival I never contemplated happening, but I'm glad it did. It's a bridge to a happier time.
Just watched the pilot of the new Frasier. It does a decent job of a pilot: introduce the cast and set up the premise. I can see the comparison to Picard. Both shows are sequels decades after the original that feature the older main character placed in a new situation, with brand new characters, that does not really feel like the original anymore. It is just the pilot so we will see if it is able to re-capture the magic. I do like that they kept the same theme song and the format of the chapter cards and post credit scene that was a hallmark of Frasier. The set up at the end with Frasier buying the entire apartment building so his son can live rent free and he can be a neighbor, feels pretty contrived IMO. But it is an excuse to put Frasier in another big luxurious apartment, like in the OG show and to have the other characters nearby. And they have the son live with Frasier like Frasier's dad lived with him in the OG show.
There is a really nice homage to John Mahoney.
I will say that the kid who plays Niles' kid does a really good job of capturing Niles' mannerisms and speech. At times, you can almost hear Niles in him. He is definitely believable as Niles' kid. He is fun to watch and was the highlight of the pilot for me. The other main cast are ok but nothing special so far. There is the old tenured English professor who is a bad teacher, as he jokes many times about not even teaching his class or even knowing his own students. He also dislikes the department head. She is a woman, who seems like she will be the "tough boss". There is Frasier kid who is a firefighter. He is your typical late 20's kid. There is his roommate, an attractive young woman in her late 20s. She has a newborn that she had with another firefighter who was a close friend of Frasier's kid and he passed in a tragic fire.
There is one big glaring plot similarity with the original Frasier. In that show, Frasier was the son who struggled to connect with his older father who was a different social class. Now, Frasier is the older father who is struggling to connect with his son who is a different social class as he is.
It will be interesting to see how psychiatry plays into the show since that is a big part of Frasier's character. On Cheers, he was the young psychiatrist. In the OG Frasier, he was a radio psych who gave advice to callers and tried to "help" the other main cast with their issues. And he had his brother Niles, who was also a psychiatrist, to play off of. In this sequel, they hint that Frasier will become a psych prof at the Boston college. So I imagine that will be how they bring in the psych element. I wonder if Frasier will try to use psychiatry to help his son and the other main characters.
There is a really nice homage to John Mahoney.
I will say that the kid who plays Niles' kid does a really good job of capturing Niles' mannerisms and speech. At times, you can almost hear Niles in him. He is definitely believable as Niles' kid. He is fun to watch and was the highlight of the pilot for me. The other main cast are ok but nothing special so far. There is the old tenured English professor who is a bad teacher, as he jokes many times about not even teaching his class or even knowing his own students. He also dislikes the department head. She is a woman, who seems like she will be the "tough boss". There is Frasier kid who is a firefighter. He is your typical late 20's kid. There is his roommate, an attractive young woman in her late 20s. She has a newborn that she had with another firefighter who was a close friend of Frasier's kid and he passed in a tragic fire.
There is one big glaring plot similarity with the original Frasier. In that show, Frasier was the son who struggled to connect with his older father who was a different social class. Now, Frasier is the older father who is struggling to connect with his son who is a different social class as he is.
It will be interesting to see how psychiatry plays into the show since that is a big part of Frasier's character. On Cheers, he was the young psychiatrist. In the OG Frasier, he was a radio psych who gave advice to callers and tried to "help" the other main cast with their issues. And he had his brother Niles, who was also a psychiatrist, to play off of. In this sequel, they hint that Frasier will become a psych prof at the Boston college. So I imagine that will be how they bring in the psych element. I wonder if Frasier will try to use psychiatry to help his son and the other main characters.
Last edited:
It definitely feels like that.
Episode 2 is way better than the pilot. The air hockey table scene was fun. The bar scene with Freddy, Frasier and the other firefighters was genuinely funny and heartwarming. It used psychiatry effectively. The other firefighters are great.
The second episode was the stronger of the two.
"Fenway? Meet Steinway."
Brilliant!
David is definitely his father's son. I could hear Niles' voice, too. Eerie! I wonder if he's psychically inclined like his mother, but keeps it under wraps.
"Fenway? Meet Steinway."
Brilliant!
David is definitely his father's son. I could hear Niles' voice, too. Eerie! I wonder if he's psychically inclined like his mother, but keeps it under wraps.
Agreed. I think what made the second episode better is that it had that right mix of humor and seriousness, with some depth to the characters. It was able to be genuinely funny in places but also get serious too. And the scene at the end with Frasier and Freddy in the apartment when they have that rapprochement was touching. I really appreciate a TV show that can mix humor, touching moments but also be serious too.
Hmm, my hope is that the writing will end up being quite good then. I don't generally like sitcoms, or more precisely multi-camera sitcoms, and I only like very few of them. Frasier was one of those, and I feel it transcended the format due to its writing and comedic timings. But to be fair, early Frasier was also pretty rough.
The second episode of the new Frasier was a lot better than the pilot IMO. So I am optimistic that the new Frasier will get good. I will definitely keep watching new episodes as son as they drop.
PS: I think shows probably deserve at least 1 season before passing judgement because it is only fair to give the writers, producers and actors time to find their groove. So I think the new Frasier show deserves that.
Yeah, that's fair, afterall there's only so much development they can do in half-hour episodes or less. But at the same time comedies are perfectly suited to half-hour formats. I watched a locally produced half-hour drama a few years ago, and I felt it was ill-suited to the format because it could never feature enough before the episodes ended.
This was true in the broadcast era, when producers, writers and actors were able to react in real-time to feedback. (For example, Marty Crane was softened significantly in the first season of Frasier after everyone realized he was way, way too crusty and antagonistic.)
When it comes to something that's already completely in the can, like the Frasier revival, it isn't true.
And this revival is garbage. It's trying way too hard to re-capture the Frasier / Martin dynamic, and Kelsey Grammer is playing ... well, himself. The writing is insipid. You could title the show "Dad!" and it wouldn't lose anything.
Last edited:
I wouldn't put it as harsh but i agree in general.
So far it's rather generic and bland. Grammer plays Frasier well but that's to be expected if you have played a character for decades. The other characters don't have much if anything that makes them interesting or unique - the son with father issues is a done to death TV trope and trying to replace Niles/David Hyde Pierce with a more than poor copy is just.. something ( no critique on the actor, it is just immensely hard to follow Pierce in that role who killed it from day one).
I don't believe the premise is strong enough to make this a a good companion/revival show for the original Frasier because it lacks the unique characters that made the previous show so memorable and funny, it was just lightning in a bottle and it would have been a miracle if they could repeat it 3 times in a row. I hope they do find their own style and can quickly move on to find something of their own that isn't too generic or a rehash of the old show, otherwise i don't see this going very far.
I thought it was awful.
it uses the stale soulless flat type of "comedy" that main stream stuff like sitcoms, "comedy" movies (especially those touting big name actors in them as their main selling point), and Saturday Night Live tend to use. Even the first "comedy" bit of the second episode is a bog standard "out of touch writer attempting to show how down with the kids they are" type joke. In this case an almost 7 year old meme.
it uses the stale soulless flat type of "comedy" that main stream stuff like sitcoms, "comedy" movies (especially those touting big name actors in them as their main selling point), and Saturday Night Live tend to use. Even the first "comedy" bit of the second episode is a bog standard "out of touch writer attempting to show how down with the kids they are" type joke. In this case an almost 7 year old meme.
Last edited:
I will admit I found it a bit uneven, but I did enjoy it for the most part. I don't care much for David. He seems a bit too much like Jim Parson's character on BBT. That said, he did channel Niles pretty well at times. I found the moment between Frasier and Freddy at the end of episode 1 to be very touching and I even got a little misty while they were talking about Frasier's father. I'll give this some time to mature and see where it goes.
I guess that's my main worry. This is the kind of show which needs to make a strong first-impression, because if it's just a generic sitcom, not even Frasier Crane will be enough to draw me to it.
I've loved watching Young Sheldon, because while it's technically classified as a sitcom, it really feels more like a coming of age drama along the likes of the Wonder Years and really feels uncharacteristic of a sitcom.
Just finished watching both episodes (didn't realize we were getting two today!)...and I loved both of them. It truly felt like a continuation of the old series, with all of its wit and charm and breaking down snobbery and classism. The back and forth antics from the kitchen in the first episode and the doubletalk conversation at the bar felt just like the days of old.
I really enjoy all of the new characters, particularly the banter between Olivia and Alan, and how David truly is the child of Daphne and Niles. I'm looking forward to seeing more of all of them, as well as the eventual return of the classics.
Lastly, I loved the touching tributes to both Martin Frasier and John Mahoney. I definitely shed a tear during the bedroom scene. Perfection.
I really enjoy all of the new characters, particularly the banter between Olivia and Alan, and how David truly is the child of Daphne and Niles. I'm looking forward to seeing more of all of them, as well as the eventual return of the classics.
Lastly, I loved the touching tributes to both Martin Frasier and John Mahoney. I definitely shed a tear during the bedroom scene. Perfection.
Similar threads
