Frasier

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 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.

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.

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.

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.