I only just discovered the existence of this obvious misfire. The casting and writing doomed it from the start; it simply takes a higher-powered production to stand up to the standards set by the original, and Brit-to-US conversions can be especially tricky. A glance at the first episode on YouTube is telling; virtually every line is followed by intrusive audience laughter, I assume canned. The viewer has no opportunity to judge whether it's funny or not, and for me it makes the show too irritating for its limited merits to be appreciated. Full of commercials too, just as it was aired.
Of course the success of a 'Fawlty Towers' redo rests primarily on the central character of Basil (or Royal etc.). Too-likable Larroquette couldn't approach the mastery of Cleese, with his endearingly detestable Basil's capacity for crazed malevolence and loony desperation, along with that certain edgy spark. But as Executive Producer of 'Payne', John L. Footed the bill and could cast himself in the main role and call the shots. For my money, the John who would have come closest to the mark would be John Lithgow-- the flavor wouldn't be the same (couldn't be and shouldn't be), but still pretty darn zesty!
Now, where to go with the rest of the cast... how to work up that special chemistry? Well, when in doubt, go after Saturday Night Live or SCTV graduates, or for that matter 90s talent from Mad TV or In Living Color. In other words, more players with sketch comedy experience, many of whom would have the chops to make the jump to successful sitcoms and big screen careers. Ah well, all wishful thinking at this point. Far better to come up with a fresh concept than invite negative comparison with past brilliance.
