Frasier

I was not 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 was at the Dr.'s core was removed in this reboot or was never really there in the last. Wearing sneakers, settling to live in an average apartment, patronizing a run-of-mill bar (Cheers was different). Are we to believe he went from national celebrity to teaching and no longer wants the finer things in life or that he no longer wants to help people through psychiatry ... 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. Think of how many crazy sit-in guests he could have had and the potential for drama and characters behind the scenes of a tv show. Not to mention what great apartments with a fantastic view he could have had in Chicago. Additionally, keeping intact his pseudo-aristocratic nature would have made his relationship with his son more challenging and exciting.

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.

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.

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.