Frasier

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.

He picks up his character and doesn't skip a beat! Just the rest of the cast can't keep up with him.

He keeps me coming back or I wouldn't have made it past the first episode.

First, the laugh track. Make it stop, can we do a real audience?

Secondly, the entire new cast of the show is meh...at best.

The original was a really tough act to follow and knowing that, casting could have stepped it up.

The new cast/writing goes for the standard and prescribed laughs, which have become common in newer sitcoms.

The actor delivery becomes formulaic. It's as if they wandered off a Disney set and found themselves on this show; confused and insecure.

There isn't anything much unique about the new show Frasier, other than it taking place in Boston and reuniting with his son.

What made Cheers and Frasier (the original) interesting, each show was character/actor/story driven. This reboot seemed rushed and disorganized.

Lastly, locations and sets arent very dynamic. Cheers and Frasier (the original) took had more interesting set location; The bar in Cheers, the apartment (original Frasier), cafe nervosa, the radio station...the sets became a character in and of themselves.

After episode 6, it does start to pick up. The scripts are more tightly written with Frazier's antics. There are cameo performances from Lilith and Roz.

I'm just not in love with it, like the original. I'm hoping the show can recast or at least find its rhythm.

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 wasn't 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 what was at the Dr.'s core was removed or never really there. Wearing sneakers, settling to live in an average apartment, patronizing a run-of-mill bar, from national celebrity to teaching... 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. Additionally, keeping intact his pseudo-aristocratic nature would have made his relationship with his son more challenging and exciting.

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.