Paramount Plus: Fraiser sequel picked up to series

[Khan]

At this point, I don't want another season of this revival.  I really don't.  I think the premise is all wrong for all the reasons that Ken Levine outlined, and I think the persons responsible for the new series don't have a clue how to write for Frasier/Kelsey either.  When I heard that adult Freddy was going to serve Martin's former function as the down-to-earth counterpoint to Frasier - when all along we've seen Freddy behaving very much like Frasier and Lilith - I knew this show wasn't gonna work for me.

[DramatistDreamer]

Sorry to say, Kelsey himself is a big part of what has gone wrong with the series. If the writers had been strong enough to resist but they’re not, they gave too much deference to him and they will be left holding the bag. 
With Kelsey bragging about his love of Trump all over the place, it’s entirely possible that the remaining fans won’t care whether the show returns anyway. 
Honestly, I wish the series had attempted a spinoff featuring Brian Stokes Mitchell.

[Vee]

It just seems like a show with the name branded on it and little other connective tissue. I've seen some defenses of it (and suggestions it would fare better on CBS proper, since it is so conventional) but I haven't been remotely compelled to tune in.

[Khan]

It might be because there's no compelling reason for it to exist other than for nostalgia's sake.  IMO, one reason why the first series worked, aside from that once-in-a-lifetime cast and writers who "wrote up" to the audience rather than down, was because it had a strong premise pushing it forward. 

As a police officer and family man, Martin Crane always had been self-reliant to the point of being stubborn.  Then, he gets injured, is forced to retire and finds he is unable to live on his own without assistance.  He has but one of two options: either live in an assisted living facility, which is he too proud to do; or live with one of his sons - and since Niles either can't or won't move his dad in with him and Maris, it's up to Frasier, therefore, to take him in, despite the fact that Frasier himself has undergone major life changes - ending his marriage, being separated from his son, moving back to his hometown, landing a new job as a "radio shrink" - and he and his father hold vastly different lifestyles and perspectives on everything. 

Frasier might not necessarily enjoy the prospect of sharing his space with Martin, but Martin's his father, and he loves him, so he views this as an opportunity to bond with him again; and Martin might resent having to give up his independence, too, but his physical limitations give him no other choice.  It's a premise that can evoke a lot of drama, humor and comedy - which it did, and very well, for eleven seasons. 

It doesn't matter that a blue-collar man like Marty could not, in real life, have fathered snooty offspring like Frasier and Niles (which the series explains very well, IMO, saying they took after their mother).  Nor does it matter that his characterization on "Frasier" contradicts what Frasier said about him on "Cheers" (probably because, we never saw him on there; and what Frasier said about him - that he was a scientist, and that he was dead - could be explained away, which "Frasier" did when Sam Malone visited Frasier for the first time in Seattle).  Frasier and Martin's new living situation lends itself to a ton of stories rooted in relatable father/son conflict, handled by two actors with amazing chemistry.

Now, compare all that to what's going on with the new series.

First of all, like I've said before, the current interpretation of Freddy as an "everyday kind of guy" contradicts all the other times we saw him on "Cheers" and "Frasier" - and that's important to remember, because, unlike with Martin when Frasier was living in Boston before, we have. Seen. Freddy. Before.  The lad was in every way exactly the sort of child whom Frasier and Lilith would have raised.  So, even if you accept that Freddy could have decided one day to shrug off life as an academic and live an altogether different existence as a firefighter (which I'm not sure I buy - I mean, a firefighter??? - but whatever), some vestiges of the "old" Freddy still need to be present.  (Seriously, the new writers would have done well to pick up and study a copy of the play "Butterflies Are Free" to give them an idea on how to write Frederick Crane as an adult). 

Furthermore, why would Frasier and Freddy have fallen out over Freddy's decision to drop out of Harvard?  As Ken Levine pointed out: would Frasier, who always has believed he had a calling to help others, be all that upset about his son becoming a firefighter?  He might be overly concerned about his son's safety, but it's not as if Freddy ran off and joined a commune; so, again, why the conflict and estrangement?  It's so forced, and so out-of-character for Frasier, too.  (Like Douglas Marland once said, "If your audience says, 'So-and-so wouldn't do that', you've failed.") 

Frasier returns to Boston in order to mend fences with Freddy, but Freddy is reluctant.  Immediately, it seems, the new writers hit a brick wall with their premise - there's nothing to compel Freddy to work on his issues with Frasier, the way Martin's immobility forced Frasier to work on his issues with him - so what's their way of getting around it?  A-ha!  Of course!  Frasier's loaded now, so he can just buy the building where Freddy lives!  That way, Freddy will have to entertain his dad!  Except, not really.  All you've actually done, gang, was take a premise that was inorganic and heavily manipulated, and added to it a lazy, sitcomy and needless wrinkle that, in fact, doesn't really solve the problem.  Meaning, Frasier can buy all of Boston if he wants; that doesn't mean his son has to talk to him if he doesn't want to.  Freddy still could ignore him, or he can just move to a different town.  Frasier's simply buying Freddy's apartment building doesn't make his need to rebuild his relationship with his son compelling.  It makes him look like Adam [!@#$%^&*] Chandler.

Sigh.  There is just so much about the new series that I don't understand. 

I don't understand why Frasier and Freddy are at odds over Freddy's career choice, or why Frasier thinks throwing money at their problems will solve them.  (If Martin and Niles were around, they'd tell him that he was using his fortune to overcompensate). 

I don't understand why Harvard would want to hire Frasier so badly just because he once hosted a widely popular daytime talk show.  (Like Ken Levine said, why would Harvard give a [!@#$%^&*] about a Dr. Oz type joining their faculty?).

I don't know who this Alan person is, or why he's friends with Frasier, or why Frasier's friends with him, or why Frasier has never mentioned him up until now, or why I should even care at all about any of that.

I don't understand why David is around when Niles and Daphne are not.  (Having their child there instead of them is not exactly the next best thing). 

I don't understand what that Eve person or her baby are doing there.  I mean, it's nice that Freddy would take in a widow and her baby, but who the [!@#$%^&*] cares? 

And I don't understand how they've done everything they could to avoid using Cheers - even saying that the bar has closed! - when that's what folks are expecting to see when they see Frasier back in Boston!  (Heck, Cheers could just have been a recurring element on the new series, with Norm, Cliff and Carla making occasional appearances; and instead of Sam, they could have a new owner bartender, with the explanation that Sam finally retired).

I'm just so pissed off that it's taken us this long to get a "Frasier" revival and yet this was the best they could do.  And Ken Levine could explain it away all he wants by saying the new guys weren't groomed the way writers on MTM, "Taxi," "Cheers" and "Frasier" were, but I think the issue with them runs deeper than a lack of familiarity with writing for Frasier Crane or not coming up through the ranks of those shows.  Forget about not knowing "Frasier," those people don't know how to write sitcoms, period.

Edited December 13, 2023 by Khan

[Khan]

In a way, that's a shame, because Kelsey Grammer is just a master at what he does.  But it's getting harder and harder these days to separate the artist from their politics, when it's clear what supporting Trump actually means.

I'd like to think that future generations will be able to watch and study shows like "Cheers," "Frasier" and "Roseanne" and not concern themselves too much with which way their stars - Kels, Rosey, Kirstie - had leaned politically, but it's not like being able to watch a rerun of "The Cosby Show" and ignoring his personal demons, as awful as they are.

There's also the concern (which I have heard before) that the new team aren't taking the advice from their consultants, even though those consultants have a much deeper connection to Frasier (and to "Frasier") than they do.  They say they want to go in their own direction.  Translation?  They don't want "old people" telling them how to do their jobs.  Which is a big problem in many workforces today, but certainly within the entertainment industry.  Younger writers tend to resent older writers' input.  Frankly, that bugs the [!@#$%^&*] out of me.  It's one reason why I'll never watch anything Bill Lawrence produces, for example.

You know, I've read those suggestions, too.  I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I don't think airing it on CBS rather than on Paramount + would make any difference in terms of elevating the material.  I think the same problems that affect the show on streaming would affect them on network, too.  It's the material that isn't working for me, not necessarily where or how it's being transmitted to the public.

Edited December 13, 2023 by Khan

[Vee]

I think the suggestion I've seen had more to do with it purely surviving more easily on the network vs. any creative element. I agree it sounds like weak tea material.

This whole angle reminds me of nothing less than the last two Indiana Jones sequels, if you'll pardon a tortured parallel. By the time Indy 4 came around in the 2000s, Denholm Elliott (who'd played Marcus Brody in the first and third films) was dead and Sean Connery was either not interested or well enough to return. John Rhys-Davies, for some reason, did not appear in that one. So what was their solution? Add not one but two new 'longtime friends of Indiana Jones': John Hurt and Ray Winstone! They stuck out like sore thumbs to me, obvious replacements.

Same thing happens in the unfortunate Indy 5 recently: Antonio Banderas turns up for a few scenes to do very little except pretend to be a buddy of Indy, and the relationship with Toby Jones' character feels equally like a replacement for Marcus Brody. Anyway, this is all a longwinded discussion of Indiana Jones when I could've simply said: I hate when shows or movies do this with replacement characters years later. The character should be more unique if it's taking the place of another.

[DramatistDreamer]

I don’t think that will be the case, I think future generations will be studying and watching the shows while discussing everything that went on behind the scenes with production and with the creators of these shows.  As great as the Cosby Show was, could it have been even better had Cosby not been a predator? It’s already been a topic of intense discussion amongst writers how he might have negatively impacted spinoff series ADW by stomping on director Debbie Allen’s ambitions of incorporating Lisa Bonet’s pregnancy into Denise’s college experience and also keeping Maggie Lawton at a HBCU that was authentically Black. Not to mention the mess he made of the character once she returned to Brooklyn and married her off to a conservative navy officer (which never made a drop of sense to me). We can study the brilliance of the writing of the series’ early seasons but it is instructive to look behind the curtain to see the obvious errors that were made that may have impacted the shows that Cosby produced from there.

 I mean, even some Norman Lear shows were problematic behind the scenes and it affected what we saw onscreen (ahem, Good Times anyone?) so I think it’s actually really instructive, especially for future writer’s, directors and producers to study and discuss these topics in their fullness.

(*the original Frasier had its issues too but we won’t get into that 

Please register in order to view this content

)

[dragonflies]

TBH I like that Freddie is the antithesis of his parent's. People can grow and change and be different than who they are as children/teens

 

[Khan]

I agree (and I love your Indy analogies, by the way). 

I don't know who or what Alan is supposed to replace from the old series, but I think what they needed to do instead was just have Alan be someone whom Frasier meets at his new job, or maybe even someone whom Frasier was rivals with all while they were undergrads.  Of course, this wouldn't have solved the real problem with Alan - longtime friend or not, he's a pretty thin character who doesn't yield enough fresh humor - but at least we wouldn't be scratching our heads, trying to figure out how this guy is supposed to have such a deep bond with Frasier, yet we never saw him at Cheers, or ever heard Frasier talk about him.

Years ago, I "pitched" somewhere the idea of a "Frasier" revival, but under radically circumstances: Frasier's relationship with Charlotte goes kaput, sending Dr. Crane into a deep depression that causes him to neglect his thriving private practice in Chicago.  So, Frederick, now a successful psychiatrist himself, asks Frasier to join his practice in Boston.  Frasier has long wished for the opportunity to work side-by-side with his son; however, father and son Crane clash almost immediately, on account of their radically different approaches to psychiatry.  Frasier questions whether he and Frederick have made an error and considers leaving town for the sake of keeping peace between them, but Frederick convinces him to stay, which pleases Frasier, because he loves his son so much and is so happy just to see him follow in his parents' footsteps.

In the meantime, Frasier (and the viewers) would become acquainted with Frederick's longtime significant other, who comes from a large, blue-collar, Irish Catholic family, and who views much of Frasier's theories as nonsense; Frasier and Freddy's (male) office manager/receptionist/bookkeeper, herself a grad student from Boston College, who is very young and very quirky, but who admires father and son Crane a great deal; a former colleague/rival of Frasier's, who gave up his practice years ago to open his own restaurant, but who often helps Frasier gain needed perspective on his issues with his son (even if the man is a Yale alumni, as Frasier would scoff); and Margaret, Freddy's aunt/Lilith's sister, who is devoted to her nephew, but who always has regarded Frasier disdainfully.  (I pictured someone like Julia Duffy in that role, just b/c I personally think she and Kels would make an interesting match on-screen). 

In order to explain Lilith's absence, I would say that she had accepted a teaching gig at Cornell.  ("Just what the student body at Cornell needed: a fresh excuse to jump to their deaths at the gorges").  Also, Frasier and Freddy would, from time to time, co-host a podcast, called (what else?) "We're Listening".

In one episode, Frasier sees his mentor wasting away in his twilight years and wants to have him join his and Freddy's practice, but realizes right away that he's committed another blunder; and in another episode, Frasier would take Freddy back to Cheers for a special occasion (such as Sam's going-away party) and a little reminiscing, only to learn that (gasp!) Freddy actually hates the place.

Either that, or, for once, he had a well-developed character, played by someone with real comic timing, to play off of.  If Kels is broad otherwise, then I suspect it's because he's trying to compensate for the lackluster writing and co-stars.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Khan

[Vee]

I don't mind the idea, and I do think it's plausible he would change to be a contrast to them as an adult. But seeing as you have a lot of fans or critics including I think Levine speaking out against it lately, I do think Khan's idea is pretty good. Psychiatry has changed a fair bit since Frasier's heyday.

[John]

I like Frasier Freddt=y & David grew on me

Eve is ok but her only tie is friend of Freddy

 

They could drop The Harvard gang and focus on the family unit & i think the revival would work better

[DramatistDreamer]

That could be it. I noticed that he did something similar when he was on that short-lived sitcom with Patricia Heaton. His instincts and timing seemed off but it could have been the writing that time as well. And both he and Heaton both came off as quite hammy in that barely watchable series.

[Khan]

I didn't think much of "Back to You" when I first heard about it.  (I'm not a fan of Patricia Heaton's.)  Nevertheless, I wanted the show to succeed, because, the four-camera, adult-oriented situation comedy had already become an endangered species by that point.

On the one hand, I thought the supporting players were well-cast; and even if I weren't a fan of Heaton's, there was no denying that she and Kelsey would make terrific sparring partners.  However, I also thought that the premise had one wrinkle too many.  Kelsey and Patricia as former co-anchors/estranged lovers who reunite professionally after years apart was good. Theirs was a situation that allowed for plenty of relationship-based comedy and witty banter.  But having Kelsey's character learn he was the father of Patricia's character's daughter?  What on earth FOR?

It's as if networks today don't trust the simple premise that places the emphasis on well-rounded and unique characters with strong relationships to one another.  Now, there must be some sort of ridiculous gimmick or narrative twist attached, or else they're afraid viewers won't tune in.  (I can only imagine how CBS would respond to the pitch for "The Bob Newhart Show" if the MTM people were to pitch it to them today).

Moreover, Christopher Lloyd and Steven Levitan would later admit that FOX interfered creatively with the show, which doesn't surprise me.  If I had been their agent, I would've told them that FOX was the wrong network for that kind of property and to take another network's offer.  (After all, FOX is also the network that once aired a short-lived Pamela Anderson sitcom set in a bookstore, called "Stacked.")

Yeah, I could've told the new people that Frasier returning to his alma mater, with its' rarefied air and storied reputation, would not yield that much humor.  For one thing, Harvard's never been too keen to have folks film or tape anything on their campus, let alone use the university as a source for satire or a punchline for jokes.  With limits like those, the premise of Frasier teaching there becomes a comedy dead-end.

I thought it would have been funnier if Frasier were to teach at a smaller university that was struggling academically as well as financially, and one that didn't view its' psychology department as a high priority either.  (IOW, a state school).  Frasier's immediate circle might scoff at the idea of his teaching there, but he would have looked upon it as a personal and professional challenge: "How best could I use my considerable talents, background and reputation amongst my colleagues in the field of psychiatry to elevate this mediocre department into a top-notch institute for training the mental health professionals of tomorrow?".  That way, the comedy would come from Frasier always trying to overcome the bureaucracy and anti-intellectualism inherent in his new profession, and never quite succeeding.

So, yes, if I had anything at all to do with the revival series, I would phase out Alan and Olivia.  (I suddenly feel like I'm talking about GL).  Frasier doesn't really NEED a buddy, and Olivia serves no purpose beyond luring him back to Harvard.  As dean of psychology, Olivia should've been resisting the idea of Frasier joining the faculty, given his past as a "radio shrink" and daytime talk show host, not coaxing him into taking the position.  Because, it isn't as if Harvard NEEDS someone with Frasier's level of fame, know what I mean?  It's Harvard, not Whatsamotta U.

I'd have Frasier sell the building or maybe even go into bankruptcy and lose everything after his accountants or business managers steal all his money, thereby forcing Freddy to take him in.  That way, with father and son now living together, they're forced to work on their issues and truly learn about each other over time.

I'd either phase out Eve and her baby or fast-track what I'm sure is an inevitable romantic pairing between her and Freddy, so that Eve would have a much stronger tie to Frasier as his new daughter-in-law or daughter-in-law-to-be.

I'd send David packing, because I just don't feel he's necessary to this show.

BUT...Frasier NEEDS to be hosting a podcast; preferably, with some Boston-based comic with a working-class disposition, so that Kelsey would have a blue-collar type to play off of.

Finally - and I don't know how well this would go over with anyone - but I seriously would advocate for Freddy quitting his job and going back to college, preferably to study psychiatry again.

I get that.  And I'm not saying that Freddy couldn't have changed as an adult so that he would serve as a contrast to Frasier and Lilith, per se.  But...it's kinda like what happens when you take a nerdy kid on a soap opera and SORAS him into this hunk who not only doesn't look like the nerd, but who also shares little or none of his behavioral attributes or quirks.  The hunk is playing the same character as the nerd, but in name only.  That's how I regard Jack Cutmore-Scott's Freddy.  He's a blandly handsome guy who's not at all like Freddy when he was younger in even the slightest of ways.  Yes, people change as they get older, but not that much!

[Vee]

See, I liked it when they did that on AMC 2.0 because (and people will laugh, but hey) Rob Wilson's Pete had some of James Mitchell's imperious coldness when he got angry or was stymied in business. Physically he was a beautiful package and a fantasy prince for Celia Fitzgerald, but he had a darkness underneath that could be riled when someone didn't help fulfill his dot-com dreams. Further, they made it a story point that he used to be a four-eyed geek played by two almost certainly gay actors previously as a kid and teen on the network show - once she got him into bed, Colby Chandler needled him about being the nerd who'd had a crush on her when they were both played by different people. It gave the hunkier Pete an air of overcompensation. I don't mind the transformations when they are acknowledged. YMMV. Once again, wildly OT as an excuse to talk about the Hulu soaps!

Edited December 14, 2023 by Vee

[Khan]

You know, as I was wrapping up my previous post, my inner voice said, "@Vee is gonna read this, he's gonna bring up Pete Cortlandt's transformation and you're gonna hafta tell him that, as a matter of fact, you actually agree with him."

Sure enough, lol!