Frasier

I was not expecting a duplicate of the first act but I had high hopes of seeing the continuation of the "loveably pompous" Frasier Crane. Unfortunately, it seems like most of what was at the Dr.'s core was removed in this reboot or was never really there in the last. Wearing sneakers, settling to live in an average apartment, patronizing a run-of-mill bar (Cheers was different). Are we to believe he went from national celebrity to teaching and no longer wants the finer things in life or that he no longer wants to help people through psychiatry ... to many things the doctor we know, would not suscribe to. Without the uptight, buttoned up, picky, elitist, notoriety status grabbing snob...what do you have? You have my next door neighbor's story of his rocky relationship with his kid...I don't need tv for that!

I'm my opinion, tv stardom should have been the present, not the past. Think of how many crazy sit-in guests he could have had and the potential for drama and characters behind the scenes of a tv show. Not to mention what great apartments with a fantastic view he could have had in Chicago. Additionally, keeping intact his pseudo-aristocratic nature would have made his relationship with his son more challenging and exciting.

I'm an enormous fan of the original Frazier, it is one of the finest sit-coms ever, the writing and acting was second to none.

Admittedly only 2 episodes of this sequel have aired so far and I'll give it the benefit of the doubt for a few more but thus far I'm not impressed at all.

Things that need to improve, fast:

• Niles and Daphne's son isn't a character, he's a poor pastiche.

• the Dean of the school is a cliche and in this instance is neither used to deliver comedy or as a straight-man to bounce jokes off.

• the character played by Nicholas Lyndhurst has very few jokes and is again another lazy cliché.

• the premise of Frazier taking a job and buying a building feels forced and is a regurgitation of the original premise.

• the son character immediately jumped into "feelings" with zero comedy value.

• Frazier has lost his angst, his blundering despite best efforts, his effete snobbery has been removed. All the stuff that made him funny.

Cheers and Frazier had an edge to them, they were that sharp, slightly mean. This feels like an ABC early evening overly sanitised American 'comedy' that people may like but never really laugh at. So far this is very 2020s, there's nothing to laugh at.

This has so potential but the writers are just not that great on this. I hate to say it because I know they're just doing a job but everything seems Forced, the jokes aren't funny. It has so much great potential though I think they need to bring on some better writers to make this Next season pop.

The original Fraser, from the very first episode, was unbelievably amazing, introducing the cast was seamlessly done. Not a big fan of the neighbor with the baby. I don't really think she adds anything to the show. She's a great actress, but the show doesn't move well with that character.

I've had maybe one or two laugh out loud moments, but the rest of it was just ehhh.

Better writing and better character development in my opinion will fix the show.

It's a slightly shaky seven-out-of-ten for the Frasier re-boot. The new concept seems solid, the writing is clever enough and Kelsey Grammar has still got it. The other positives are Jack Cutmore-Scott as Frasier's son, Freddy, and Anders Keith as Niles' son, David. Each instantly clicks in the roles and each can deliver both comedy and pathos. I'm less sure about Nicholas Lyndhurst as Frasier's friend, Alan. I can't see Lyndhurst and Grammar being as hilarious a pairing a Grammar and David Hyde Pierce. But time will tell. And for me Toks Olagundoye just didn't really gel as Olivia, and she certainly couldn't handle the zingers written for her. There was also some rather forced plotting (even for a sitcom) - like every character turning up for Frasier's dinner with Freddy. It was the kind of contrived development that the original Frasier would either have avoided or handled with considerably more aplomb. Overall, though, not a bad start. Fingers crossed.

Is this as good as the best seasons of the original series? Of course not. Expecting that would be a fools errand. But does it have its charms? Sure.

The inversion of the original plot is a nice way to both complete Frasier's character arc, while maintaining a generally familiar dynamic.

And unlike the original, which hit the ground running from the very first episode (perhaps more so than any other show), this one does have some room for improvement. The cast is inconsistent, most notably in the questionable casting of Freddy and David. That said, Eve & Alan are both excellent.

This is television comfort food. It's not meant to be anything more than this. Some of the jokes fall flat, some don't. There is an excellent joke in the fifth episode where Alan accentuates the punchline by cracking a chestnut with a gauntlet he's accidentally gotten his hand stuck in. Moments like this have flashes of the original's brilliance, but for the most part this is a show full of smiles but not full of laughs.

If you just want to see Kelsey Grammar back in the role of Fraiser, and can stomach the idea that nothing will ever match the original, then the show is well worth a watch.