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!

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.

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.

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.