Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Frasier 2.0

I watched two episodes. It was really terrible. Amateurish, old-fashioned and bad. Embarrassing.

Also:
why on earth is living with the widowed wife and baby of your friend something you’d lie to you Dad about? Is this 1955 or something? And your Dad visits one evening, then overnight buys the apartment block and moves in across the hall by the next morning.
.

Truly terrible.
 
T & P said:
Given the prevailing sentiment so far in the thread, I make the following comment with great apprehension. But whereas it will never, ever be 1% as good as the original, by episode 4 it has at least evolved into a watchable, not awful standalone American sitcom. Still very formulaic and unremarkable, but not worse than many other US sitcoms out there.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't watch most US sitcoms out there tho, they're awful.

But.....there were actually two moments in episode four when it almost had that old spark.

Nicolas Lyndhurst and the Preposterous Principal going back to argue about Shakespeare was appropriate and the conversation between Frasier and Eve really worked. The characters are still very much finding out how they work together, but there might be hope. Reviews said 5 is meant to be where it actually starts working.
 
danny la rouge said:
I watched two episodes. It was really terrible. Amateurish, old-fashioned and bad. Embarrassing.

Also:
why on earth is living with the widowed wife and baby of your friend something you’d lie to you Dad about? Is this 1955 or something? And your Dad visits one evening, then overnight buys the apartment block and moves in across the hall by the next morning.
.

Truly terrible.
Click to expand...
Yep. It's not just bad in execution it's bad in how it's been put together...
 
The other thing it really misses is the resolving the previous series in terms of moving on with life. In Frasier remnants returned from Cheers as he sought to establish a new life and a new him. In this it's like nothing really mattered much before he's just super rich and famous and that's it.
 
I think every supporting character is annoying. Especially the son Freddie who just comes over as a prick from the get go. The son of Niles and Daphne is so ridiculously caricatured is painful, and the others are all just a bit too quirky to be believable. Even Frasier himself seems to be playing a caricature of himself.

At least in old Frasier you had the much more likeable supporting characters with Martin and Ros and Daphne. This lacks all the charm of back then. I haven't found any enthusiasm to watch beyond episode 1 yet.
 
Well, Episode 5, when it was supposed to turn good again, was, okay. The characters are more relaxed and aren't trying too hard, it is the kind of situation you can actually imagine Frasier in. It would have fitted in to the original series, although as a rather disappointing episode. Far from genius, but the best of the lot by far.
 
I'm up to episode 3, though I wouldn't be if it wasn't for my partner wanting to watch it. Everything that was great about it originally is missing - the writing is poor and crucially the new supporting cast aren't interesting, likeable or funny (I'll make a slight exception for single mum Eve). The son Freddie is annoying but at least he hasn't been in it much so far. The one I really can't stand is Nicholas Lyndhurst's character, who I think they've intended as a sort of hybrid of Niles and Daphne, but it just doesn't work, and the idea that he's an alcoholic and that we're supposed to find that amusing these days is, at best, dated, and is actually quite appalling.
 
Nicholas Lyndhurst is the best thing in it! The nephew is the Niles-Daphne hybrid (for fairly obvious reasons), Freddie is replacing Martin.
 
belboid said:
Nicholas Lyndhurst is the best thing in it! The nephew is the Niles-Daphne hybrid (for fairly obvious reasons), Freddie is replacing Martin.
Click to expand...
Nicholas Lyndhurst's value is a matter of opinion, but what I mean by he's a Niles/Daphne hybrid is that he's an intellectual and he's English. Your right about Freddie - I meant the nephew, my bad.
 
Ok, cringed my way through episode 2. I've still yet to raise a laugh over two episodes. It's dire. Kelsey Grammar's a very intelligent man. He must realise how bad it is and what a mistake it was.

Does anyone know if any of the other former cast turn up later?

Review from USA Today sums it up I think.

Unfunny, stilted and downright insipid, the new “Frasier” is a flaccid facsimile of the original, desperately trying to re-create the witty patter, character idiosyncrasies and interior-design jokes that made the '90s series so seminal. Created by Chris Harris ("How I Met Your Mother") and Joe Cristalli ("Life in Pieces"), neither of whom worked on the original, and executive produced by Grammer, it's full of new characters that are hollow echoes of the original supporting cast. And without his brother, Niles (David Hyde Pierce), sister-in-law Daphne (Jane Leeves), producer Roz (Peri Gilpin) and father Martin (John Mahoney, who died in 2018), "Frasier" is adrift in a sea of bad jokes and excruciating awkwardness.
Click to expand...
 
Petcha said:
Ok, cringed my way through episode 2. I've still yet to raise a laugh over two episodes. It's dire. Kelsey Grammar's a very intelligent man. He must realise how bad it is and what a mistake it was.

Does anyone know if any of the other former cast turn up later?

Review from USA Today sums it up I think.
Click to expand...
I mentioned up earlier in the thread that possibly only Lilith and Roz are expected to appear..
 
danny la rouge said:
I’m impressed with the stamina and perseverance of those still watching this!
Click to expand...

I'm just drawn to how terribly awful it is. It's a masterpiece of shitness. I've made it through 4 or 5 episodes now, well i usually last about 3/4 an episode anyway before i have to turn it off, it just gets worse and worse. How did they manage to ruin it so badly.
 
The bit the Graun article does highlight is that the show is specifically Kelsey Grammer's creature, and I suspect the consensus on its low quality here is related to that. The actor is not the writers, no matter how fluid an ad-libber they might be, and Grammer's anti-woke conservativism was never going to be a good way to progress Frasier's earlier themes of pricked pomposity.
 
krtek a houby said:
There's a fair few actors that are on the right. And further right.
Click to expand...
I’m aware of that, but I’d like to think you can tell a bit about successful actors by the roles they play. If Frasier was a real life person, he would very likely vote Democrat, or at worst for a socially liberal Republican, if there’s ever such a thing. I wouldn’t expect Mel Gibson to accept a role in Life of Brian, just I I wouldn’t have expected a Trump supporter to revel in a character that pretty much combats as his day job the extremist, cruel, unreasoned hate-driven ideology of Trumpworld.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lord Camomile
GamesMaster 2.0 | 10pm Weds, E4
Replies
10
Views
327
ATOMIC SUPLEX
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Balbi
Frasier
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
Sue
S
Firky
Tonight's Horizon, Human 2.0
Replies
20
Views
566
WouldBe
WouldBe
A
  • Poll
If You Had To Choose One Member Of Spaced To "Do A Frasier" - Which One Would It Be?
Replies
14
Views
623
zoooo
zoooo
Back
Top Bottom