A Disappointing ‘Frasier’ Reboot

The revival of the 1990s classic sitcom offers no justification for its own existence.

By
27
Jack Cutmore-Scott and Kelsey Grammer in 'Frasier.' (Picture via Paramount+)

It’s been 30 years since Frasier premiered on NBC, but the force of time hasn’t blunted its sharp wit. Even today the original series embodies live-action comedy at its televised peak. Its characters spoke in rapid repartee that offered more urbane wit than the complete Cole Porter songbook, but that sophistication was accompanied by a healthy amount of slapstick. No other sitcom could alternate between pratfalls and “O. Henry” references to the same hilarious effect, all the while maintaining a robust emotional core around its relatable characters.

Now it’s 2023, and during an age in which nostalgia is Hollywood’s favorite marketing tool, snobbish radio psychiatrist Dr. Frasier Crane (Kelsey Grammer) is back for another broadcast. For the most part, though, the first seven episodes of this revival could only be compared to the original if it suffered a frontal lobotomy. 

A Frasier reboot never sounded particularly necessary. The original series ended with closure for all of its main characters, even if Frasier’s fate was somewhat questionable. After spending the final season desperately searching for love while his father, Martin (John Mahoney, who died in 2018), and his brother, Niles (David Hyde Pierce), each found new wives, Frasier left Seattle for Chicago in pursuit of Charlotte (Laura Linney), a matchmaker who’d stolen his heart. But throughout the series, Frasier had vainly attempted to form lasting relationships with an endless parade of women, and it was never clear why Charlotte was more compatible with him than any of them. 

Unfortunately, the writers of this reboot have no interest in even raising that question. In fact, they’re so eager to disentangle themselves from past continuity that Charlotte’s role in Frasier’s life is dismissed immediately in less than a sentence. The reboot makes light references to its predecessor to earn a few cheap smiles, but otherwise there’s little connection between them. Niles, Daphne (Jane Leeves), Roz (Peri Gilpin), and other primary members of the old cast are absent here, replaced by a new assortment of eccentrics who, seven episodes in, still mostly resemble walking punchlines. 

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
27
By
Comments (27)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    “Alan Cornwall (Nicholas Lyndhurst), a friend of Frasier’s in Harvard’s psychology department, can only endlessly repeat that he’d rather drink than do his job, a joke that could be mildly amusing if deployed once.”

    That made me chuckle.

    I’m intrigued. Early Frasier was pretty funny. Might have to check this new show out.

    Collapse
  2. CCA

    It's grown on me. The first episode's pacing was off. I'm not sold on the new sidekick (his friend). But The Blind Date episode was pretty dang good, and the show has room to stretch and improve.

    Sitcoms are largely dead. I find it sad.

    Collapse
  3. Jeffrey Wildrick

    In the first episode, it was clear that the supporting cast were all trying to find their legs, while Kelsey Grammer stepped back into the character of Fraser with ease. However, with each episode the supporting characters seem to gel more into an ensemble. Only the Dean and the nephew are still flimsy characters, but there is potential if the writers will allow it, and the actors can handle it. Meanwhile, my wife and I find the series to be consistently, funny and comfortably enjoyable. Compared to most sitcoms on TV today, this reboot is a refreshingly, warm and funny gem.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Mister D

    It is easy to forget how remarkable Frasier's success was the first time around. The concept sounded positively dreadful. Take the least popular regular from Cheers, move him to the oh-so-trendy city of Seattle, give him a similarly trendy job of talk radio host - a job completely at odds with the character we'd known from Cheers. Pair him up with a blue collar retired cop father, his even more effete brother, a psychic British PT/housekeeper, and, of course, a dog. Conceptually it had AfterMASH all over it. It worked because the casting was impeccable and the writing positively scintillating. I caught the first episode of the reboot and, like the new Night Court, it should have stayed in reruns.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      🐝 BusyBusyBee 🐝

      It didn’t help that the auto play at the end of the episode went directly into the original. It made the differences so much more glaring when able to directly compare the original Pilot with the reboot back to back.

      Collapse
  5. TallCon

    Nope. Loving it. It had an ok start but it's gotten better every week. Not only am I loving the characters I liked from the start (Olivia, Alan, Eve) but I'm really warming to the other characters as well. (Freddy, David.) Freddy in particular is getting a really nice rhythm with Frasier.

    The reason people might be disappointed is because however shaky / sturdy Frasier was at its start David Hyde Pierce was incandescent from frame one.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    John Lewis

    It's only a few episodes in, but I find it charming and enjoyable. The original show was a hit that lasted eleven years. Recalling it compresses a tremendous amount of brilliance into a small space. That's too high a bar for the current show to equal... a burden, by the way, the original never had to compete with. It's obvious there's nervousness in the writing and acting (Kelsey Grammer excluded) that suggests a keen awareness of legacy, but the reboot is still funny. Still witty. It is also very lighthearted, providing that anti-post-modern sentimentalism that made the original an antidote to so many other shows. That alone justifies the existence of this recent attempt. The new characters need to run the course a few times to find their groove... fold in a few layers of depth. I'm willing to give this a season (even two) to find its balance, and if things smooth out, expect it will provide thorough enjoyment for my weekday nights.

    Anyway, Kelsey Grammer can read a cereal box and nail the landing.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    BlueWingOlive

    I haven't seen the show and don't expect to. But how in the world does a psychiatrist become a psychology professor?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

      With God, or with a scriptwriter, anything is possible.

      Collapse
  8. Moconnor09

    I've enjoyed it so far. The sitcom is in one of those low periods and Frasier offers nothing to change my mind. It's puzzling that now back in Boston, he has yet to visit Cheers. The finale of that series showed Sam still there at least.

    Collapse
  9. Dougrhon

    I disagree 100 percent. No it does not approach the brilliance of the original series but each episode makes me laugh out loud and is thoroughly enjoyable. That is more than sufficient to justify its existence.

    Collapse
  10. Agran

    And yet thanks to the Hollywood strikes it can still be considered ‘the best new sit-com’ available;)

    Collapse
Load More