Jump to content

'Frasier' Reboot Being Explored


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 20
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

I dunno. I’m torn. An existing title will immediately break through the clutter of nearly 500 scripted shows. Folks have so many viewing options now... what’s another reboot? What would we get in its place, another Zach Braff sitcom that will come and go in a month?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Members

 

This!

 

I'm all for this. The timing would be right. They could work in the passing of Martin and have that be a great launching point. Not like the actors, even Neuwirth, aren't somewhat available. I know they're all busy, not saying they aren't, but they don't have long-term series commitments from what I'm aware of.

 

I feel like Kelsey wasn't on the bandwagon of revivals at first but I wonder if the passing of John Mahoney has him thinking similarly as me.

 

I know people are tired of revivals but I say bring 'em. Give me Frasier realizing life repeats itself with his now adult son. I think Will & Grace's revival has definitely caused others to re-think the idea. The Conners likely as well. Murphy Brown could go either way but I can't help but be a little excited when I see the cast back together. So I'm jumping onboard. I have more of an issue with reboots like Charmed and Roswell and Dynasty than I do with bringing back old shows that I loved. Sure it's the same purpose (use a familiar name to draw a built-in audience) but I'd rather have the history behind it. (One Day at a Time is an absolute exception to this though, and proves it can be possible, but I also understand it's annoying to some and not neccessary and creatively lazy)

 

I'd rather watch Frasier and The Conners than Zach Braff's latest failure.

 

We can't beat it, so we might as well join it.

 

I really never thought actors like Patrick Stewart and Kelsey Grammar would go back to their roles, but time changes people's minds. Frasier doesn't seem imminent (doesn't Grammar have something with Kristen Bell on a streaming service? He was just on GMA peddling it but I don't recall any Frasier reboot talk)

Edited by KMan101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I mean, look at CBS

 

- Murphy Brown

- Magnum P.I.

- FBI

- S.W.A.T.

- Hawaii Five-0

- Young Sheldon (spin-off but it's from the mother franchise)

 

Most companies now want "sure bets". They're very risk adverse, even though risk often pays off. I'm a Disney Parks fan and they're also very risk adverse, cloning attractions and making "safe bets" tied to franchises and IP's that are familiar. Gone are the days of them coming up with their own ideas.

 

I'm not justifying it, just saying it's a corporate reality at the moment. I don't like it but sometimes we can get something good out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah, and who knows? It might be good. It’s a unique opportunity to explore familiar characters in new situations. How do they adjust to old age, children, societal shifts, etc? 

 

And if people don’t want to see the revivals/reboots, there is so much TV/streaming content being produced right now that there’s no way to keep up with it. The reason why we mostly hear about the reboots/revivals is the very reason why networks do them: they already have great brand recognition when everyone’s fighting for market share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Well, time changes things. What did he do to piss them off? I had no idea they weren't speaking to him. But to be fair, he could still reboot Frasier without them. Not that I wouldn't want the rest back.

 

EXACTLY!

 

And I think that's the appeal of going back. Actors are seeing the viability in exploring their popular characters again because they realize there are new things to tell. Of course they don't want to go back two years after the show's over, but give 'em 15-20 years and time changes. There's more to explore. We're in a different place than we were when many of these went off the air.

 

For so long you "couldn't go back" but now many are seeing that you actually can and it's not the end of the world.

 

It's like the soaps. That's why people are invested. There's a history and attachment there. I think it's a great idea to revive old shows.

 

They lose me with the "reboots" though (there's a difference between a reboot and a revival, but they all get called "reboots" and I hate it, LOL). But I get everyone lumping them together and calling it all lazy. And some have blurred the lines, like 90210 and Melrose Place.

 

REBOOT:

- Charlie's Angels (before it's time? lol)

- 90210 (revival on some level, reboot on another)

- Melrose Place (revival on some level, reboot on another)

- Dynasty

- Magnum PI

- Hawaii Five-0

- One Day at a Time

- Alf (likely to be a mix of revival/reboot "we're continuing the story with a new family")

- Facts of Life (not a guarantee and could go either way if any of the cast demands to be involved)

 

REVIVAL

- Roseanne / The Conners

- Will & Grace

- Murphy Brown

- Fuller House (spin-off/slash revival)

- Dallas (though it seemed to want to be a reboot not a revival)

- 90210 (falls under both, IMO)

- Melrose Place (falls under both, IMO)

 

Apologies for forgetting anyone.

Edited by KMan101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That’s why the idea of regeneration on Doctor Who was so ingenious. Even though there’s continuity and the Doctor is technically the same character, they essentially reboot the show every few years with a brand-new actor/actress in the lead with a new cast and often a new feel/vision/tone. Not that the changes don’t rankle fans and traditionalists (oh boy, they do), but change is built into the show in a way that keeps things fresh and giving fans something to look forward to and get excited about. I’m also thinking about shows like Degrassi that reboot with new generations and manage to resonate with new fans. 90210, Melrose, Dallas, they could have worked a lot better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I don't see David Hyde Pierce and/or Jane Leeves being receptive to his right-wing views.  When Frasier was on the air, he was muted about his politics but after the show left the air became increasingly vocal, to the point of being obnoxious.  

I had no problem with him being open about his conservative views, especially since he couched them in his advocacy for victims rights, especially given the tragedies that happened to his father and his sister, which I was highly sympathetic to (even before I personally lost two family members through the tragedy of violence).  Over the last few years though, he's become downright Eastwoodsian about his conservative views.  

 

JMO, but if Frasier is to be revived without any of the original supporting cast, any reboot will need a very strong supporting cast because I no longer believe Grammer can successfully carry any show on his own (if I ever did).  

 

Does anyone remember 'Back To You' where he co-starred with Patricia Heaton? Given their respective resumes, that show should've worked but it was a dry, dull, vapid mess.

Most of Grammer's shows post-Frasier have been underwhelming at best.  Boss was pretty good but had the benefit of a compelling cast of co-stars.

 

Not for nothing, but David Hyde Pierce won as many awards for Frasier as Kelsey Grammer did. 

It would be interesting to see how the show gets along without Niles. 

They'd better get a darn good supporting cast if they do reboot the show.

Edited by DramatistDreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Thanks for the insight. He seems to have mellowed a bit, I felt, (I always knew he was obnoxious) but I don't really follow him so I don't know how he is. I can believe the politics thing. I didn't realize he alienated them that much. But, again, time changes people.

 

I agree that they better have a darn good supporting cast. I think they could. The right Frederick cast, if they can get Bebe Neuwirth to be a semi-regular. It could possibly work but I agree with you on your take. I think he needs that strong supporting cast. Frasier without that cast would have been another "Flo". You have to have the right chemistry and support you had on the original show.

 

I think fans would expect to see Roz, Niles and Daphne. I would. But I can see a scenario where it goes without them (if it's even an option, just speculating at this point). I mean at the end of the day they're actors and if they want to go back to those roles, and are asked, who knows? They're all still working, not like they're sitting at home waiting for a call. It could be difficult. I could see guest appearances if they all got along. Little arcs.

 

I absolutely agree about Niles and David Hyde, I'd personally rather watch Niles and Daphne's antics. Really though the whole cast was just stellar. It all just worked. Magic happened.

 

The scenario is there (Martin's passing) if they can make it work. I have my doubts though. I had my doubts before but hearing of the cast's issues with each other, it seems even less likely. But stranger things have happened! LOL. I never say never anymore.

 

Kelsey played Frasier brilliantly but I've come to like him better in dramatic roles. It may not have been the best but I liked his Starz drama that lasted a couple of seasons. I think he's more appealing now doing dramatic work. He's too smug as a person for comedy as anyone other than Frasier. JMO. His series with Kristen Bell doesn't look awful.

Edited by KMan101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think DHP was asked awhile ago about the possibility of reprising Niles, either for a "Frasier" revival or a series of his own, and he said no.  But does that mean he wouldn't be up for a guest appearance or two?  We'll have to wait and see.

 

I agree that it will have to come down to the supporting cast, and whether the premise is something that can sustain itself for more than a few episodes.

 

I also agreed with Grammer when he said he didn't want to go back to Frasier's old apartment in Seattle and pretend like nothing has changed.  It's been, what, fourteen years since we've seen him?  He shouldn't be in the same place he was at the end of "Frasier," either geographically or psychologically, or else it'll be really depressing to watch.

 

I still think having him teach at a university -- perhaps, the University of Chicago? -- would be the next, logical step for Frasier.  Continuing with his radio show, even in podcast form, would feel redundant to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • You're right. People like me who stuck with her, did so because of her history. The show just skated her along with no story,  no goal, no aim. Right again! This is who I forgot before. When you describe her, it makes me appreciate her more. Thinking back I loved Mandy.
    • Maybe Guza is becoming Y&R Head writer and Jilly will be named EP! Remember CBS installed Latham as consultant and later Mal Young, both of whom took over the show. Of course, they each got credit during the consulting days.
    • Don't forget Carrie, who as Carrie2 was screwing everything in pants, and PPD Reva, who to either get back at Josh for his supposed affair with Vanessa (or just to prove she's more desirable than Van) tries to screw half the male population.
    • Post-production isn't exactly akin to sweeping the floors, but it makes more sense given her CV.  And, it would invalidate any concerns that she has an undo influence on the creative process, as opposed to visual and sound design of the show.  In fact, given her interests, it makes sense that she would want to consult and see the impact of newer technology in a post-production facility.  I could only imagine how much has changed in sound technology since she worked on SB, and that might be intriguing to utilize. As well as their impending move (not as soon as B&B, but we all know it will happen) and helping set up post-production at the new facility. 
    • The last five or so episodes of season 8 after the Jean Hackney story ended were pretty strong with the Laura/Val friendship breakdown, Ben's PTSD with Val trying to help him, and the start of Jill realizing that Val was as much of a threat to her happiness with Gary as Abby was. I always thought that the Jean Hackney story should have ended at mid season at the latest... and then deal with the fall-out because seeing Ben/Val switch roles with Ben in mental decline instead of Val would have been interesting to explore.  And seeing Val and Laura's friendship suffer also was interesting and should have been explored especially with Karen caught in the middle and Abby both intrigued and amused at the conflict that she didn't cause. However, season 8 was the only Latham run season where Val was well written.  
    • Well, she's not in there sweeping the floors at the end of the night, and you don't bring in an award-winning producer to just sit on their backsides (or hey, maybe you do!). Again, without knowing the specific capacity she's in there working as⏤and it seems as if we are not going to at the present time⏤it's hard to speculate/discuss. I would interpret she's in a role that either would not require being credited, or she's, as others have speculated, is back and not receiving credit for the work she's done. That'd be like saying, per the WGA, all writers must be credited, but as we've seen by those who've worked as fi-core, they don't always receive credit. 

      Please register in order to view this content

       And, if my research is correct, per the DGA, you can request not to be credited for work you do. I could only assume the same would be for the PGA, as well.
    • When Anita read Barbara's letter, it started out with the viewers hearing it in Barbara's voice as Anita read silently. And then Anita saying the next portion aloud while Barbara's voice continued simultaneously. And then ending with Anita alone saying the last part aloud. Excerpt from interview  (link to full interview) The rest may be spoilerish -- Only the nonspoiler part here: I love the idea of reading that letter,” shares Tunie. “And at one point in the script, I think it said that my voice joined her, and [Anita] started reciting the letter from memory because [she] memorized this letter. I suggested to Steve Williford, our director, ‘What if it’s like that moment in Hamilton when Hamilton is writing the resignation letter to George Washington, and then he starts saying it too, and then Hamilton’s voice fades away, and then it’s all George. What if we do something like that?’ And he was like, ‘Oh, my God! I just got chills. Let’s do it!’ So, we did it.” I understood that it worked really well, so I’m really happy about that.”  
    • I think MVJ and Guza made a good team in the launching of the soap, and I'm hoping that the rotation of all stories and characters is maintained once he officially departs from the credits. And so far, Ron C's breakdowns have been decent... but they pop only when he's paired with a good script writer like Jazmin.   I hope once Guza leaves officially... that MVJ is able to reign in Ron C and the dread Jamey G.
    • I read that, but my interpretation was that she is uncredited because it is in a non-production capacity.  In others words, she's not secretly producing, or writing, as some had speculated prior to the confirmation. Her likeliest position would be in a post-production consultant capacity. I assume we agree on this?
    • Errol already confirmed she is back at Y&R and in a non-producing role; this alludes to she is not credited for the role she has.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy