Frasier

Early days but it's already suffering the fate of nearly all reboots of previously successful shows..living up to your own standards!

The original series was one of the best TV had to offer, winning so many awards to prove it, competing with that is going to be next to impossible. So the question then becomes WHY would you want to try?

It has its moments for sure and compared to much of the detritus currently being aired it doesn't take a lot to rise above them but you're NOT them..you have a pedigree ..a history to live up to!

The temptation to simply turn this off and go watch re-runs of the original to remind yourself just how good that really was..maybe too great..!

Edit: After season finale.. The kindest way to frame it..might be to consider this reboot as a 10 episode Epilogue, in the vein of .. I wonder what ever happened to ole' Frasier..well now we know and it's time to close the book!

As good as it was, I think the original 'Frasier' declined in its final years, with the finale never really feeling quite 'final'.

With Kelsey Grammer's post 'Frasier' tv shows never lasting very long (though I still like 'Back to You' to this day) it seemed more of a case of when rather than if 'Frasier' would return one day.

This is the result.

To be fair, it's not bad at all, and I think in time will only grow into itself. Grammer is on good form and rejuvenated in the lead role, and in Nicholas Lyndhurst (sitcom royalty here in the UK from his time in 'Only Fools') has very strong support.

People have moaned that none of the original supporting cast are along for the ride, but I think this actually works to this reboot's advantage.

It feels like Frasier Crane's third act, that we began the journey with him on all the way back in 'Cheers'. The fact that he is now in the 'Martin' role, trying to connect with Freddy his son gives the show a nice bit of symmetry, and there are enough nods both in terms of references and plots to original series, so that it doesn't feel like 'Joey' where the character's prior journey was ignored.

Time will tell how long this third act lasts, but the promise/potential is there.

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.

Like most everyone, I loved the original "Frasier" and had hoped this new one would be a great follow up. Alas, however, in my opinion the casting was off. Kelsey Grammer as Frasier is still great, but the dynamic that existed between himself, his father and Miles his brother, could not be beat. I know others have come up with alternate storylines and I have one myself; that his father Martin had an affair, while temporarily separated from their mother and, unbeknownst to him, had a child who comes to find him in adulthood, but instead finds Frasier. The story would go on to reveal that the sibling is a male who also grew up to became a psychiatrist and is an awfully lot like Niles.

The actor who is portraying Freddy was miscast I believe. His acting seems wooden and unbelievable and there's nothing appealing about him. Plus the storyline about him being a firefighter is hard to believe because he sure is around a lot and unless he's always on his days off, it looks like he never works. There's just no chemistry between he and Frazier. I don't want anything good to happen for him, because he seems like a guy I would stay away from in real life.

The other characters have no charisma either. It's sad that no one from the old show couldn't come back to bring some of the old spark back. I really did want this one to work.

I love the original Frasier show. It was excellent, smart writing and genuine laughs.

Fast forward to this show and I immediately noticed it felt different - a LOT different. From the get go, this show feels like a sitcom from the 70s or 80s with the absolutely dreadful cheap laugh tracks and quick-fire predictable "jokes" that happen every 5 seconds. Then there's the writing, so far it has zero of the flair from the original. Frasier doesn't quite *act* like the Frasier we all know. The nephew, professors and Frederick all feel like placeholders for quick-fire cheap and tired jokes.

But then...it gets serious, maybe a little too serious, but answers some important questions we were all thinking.

Then finally, it has a short build up of how Frasier plans to stay.

There's potential for later episodes to tone down the cheese sitcom feel to it. But overall this first episode was good/bad. Bad mostly wins out but the serious part gives me hope for great writing like that in future episodes, so it gets a 5/10.