'Frasier' Reboot Being Explored

[DramatistDreamer]

Oh boy, hold onto your re-boots.

Please register in order to view this content

 

[Khan]

I think Frasier should be somewhere in the midwest, teaching at a university.

[I Am A Swede]

Oh joy, another reboot..... 

Please register in order to view this content

Is Hollywood so devoid of new ideas?

[Faulkner]

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?

[Juliajms]

Yeah, that would work. 

[Khan]

 

Oh, Lawd.

 

Yeah, I am TOTALLY down for a "Frasier" revival.

[KMan101]

 

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 August 10, 2018 by KMan101

[DramatistDreamer]

Are David Hyde Pierce, Jane Leeves and Peri Gilpin even still talking to Grammar?

[KMan101]

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.

[Faulkner]

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.

[KMan101]

 

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 August 10, 2018 by KMan101

[Faulkner]

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. 

[DramatistDreamer]

 

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 August 10, 2018 by DramatistDreamer

[KMan101]

 

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 August 10, 2018 by KMan101

[Khan]

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.