Frasier review: Hey baby, I hear reboots a-callin’
Paramount Plus' revival of the beloved sitcom feels cozily low-stakes but a bit dated
TV Reviews Frasier
We’d like you to imagine, if we might be so bold, an old shoe. No, strike that—an old and beloved shoe. Years ago, you put the work into making it feel just right. You stomped around in it everywhere, until it became a leathery extension of your own foot. Then, for some reason, you put it in a cupboard and forgot about it for years … until now.
You can see where we’re going with this belabored metaphor, right? Frasier—the beloved sitcom that spanned 11 seasons, taking us from the ’90s into the early aughts—is the old shoe. And so, when we heard it was being rebooted (hey, that’s another shoe reference!), we expected it to feel just like old times. That the shoe would slide on, Cinderella-style, and everything would be perfect.
Here’s the thing, though: Even an old shoe can, if you haven’t worn it in forever, feel strange and new. And Frasier—the new Frasier, which premieres October 12 on Paramount+—is much the same, largely because it has the confidence to not just do something entirely new with our protagonist (his radio show days are over), but to also hurl him headfirst into a new setting—well, sorta—with an entirely new group of people around him.
The plot is simple enough: Frasier goes back to Boston to form a rapprochement with his estranged son. (You can tell we’ve been watching this series intently; we’re even starting to talk like Dr. Crane.) In the process, the retired TV star winds up getting a new job as a lecturer at a very prestigious university, moving into a lavish new apartment, and finding a suitable replacement for his beloved Cafe Nervoso in the local bar. (How very Cheers of him).
Fans of the original will know that the plot shifts and changes each week. Every episode is a standalone story, throwing our characters into a series of predicaments—an emotionally charged quiz night, an elite invite-only club, a night cooking cassoulet at the fire station—and waiting to see how they’ll muddle their way out of them. It’s cozily low-stakes stuff.
Fans of the original will also, however, find it hard not to draw parallels between New Frasier and Old Frasier. Really hard. We spent the first few episodes, in fact, trying to determine who’s the new Daphne (the most likely contender was Nicholas Lyndhurst’s Alan Cornwall, solely because … well, because he’s British), the new Niles (obviously Anders Keith’s David, a.k.a. Frasier’s nephew and Niles’ familiarly fussy son), the new Marty (Jack Cutmore-Scott’s Freddy, Frasier’s son, has grown up to be a beer-swilling, no-nonsense fireman, so our money is on this guy). There’s even a contender for the new Roz in the form of not just one, but two new characters: Jess Salgueiro’s Eve (Freddy’s roommate) and Toks Olagundoye’s Olivia (Frasier’s new boss).
When you waste your time doing this, though, things wind up feeling disappointing and a bit clunky. The new Daphne isn’t quite as Daphne as we’d like her to be; Alan is far too focused on his cat and his apparent quest to make alcoholism funny; David idolizes Frasier far too much to be a true Niles Crane, quite frankly; and on and on.
You get the picture. Different characters are exactly that: different characters. And, just as it takes time to get to know and like people in real life, so it does with this motley crew. Hell, even Freddy feels like a stranger How did that—whisper it—incredibly irksome little boy grow up to be Mr. July in the Boston Fire Department’s charity calendar? What caused the mathlete and spelling-bee aficionado to drop out of college? And how did Frasier Crane and Lilith Stern’s son grow up to be so damn well adjusted?
Still, once you stop thinking about it all too hard—and once you stop asking difficult questions (such as, say, if Alan is truly Frasier’s longtime best friend from their Oxford days, why did he never visit or call during the OG series?)—everything starts to feel a lot more enjoyable. Kelsey Grammer’s older, wiser, and obscenely richer version of the character we fell in love with all those years ago is … well, dare we say he’s actually more lovable than the OG? Oh sure, he’s now the kind of person who rents out entire apartment blocks and says crappy, loaded things like ‘Freddy’s not just a fireman,” but he is every bit as pompous and silly and earnest as we remember. And, come the fifth episode, he and his new gang are starting to hit (almost) all the right notes. Things can only get better, too, with Peri Gilpin and Bebe Neuwirth set to reprise their beloved characters later down the line. And so, just like that, the old shoe stops rubbing and blistering our foot, and starts to feel comfortable and familiar again.
Much as you’d expect from a decade-old shoe you’ve dug out the back of a cupboard, however, the new Frasier sometimes feels a little dated. The comedy and pacing is very ’90s sitcom, the laugh track even more so. But here’s the thing about nostalgia: It’s addictive AF. And so, once you get into the swing of it, we suspect you’ll be very glad that Frasier’s back in the building … even if it’s a different building in a different city. Cheers.
Frasier premieres October 12 on Paramount+
120 Comments
“In the process, the retired TV star winds up getting a new job as a lecturer”.What? Who?
I read in a different review that after the events of the original Frasier series, he moved to Chicago and became a Dr. Phil like tv show host.
That’s actually a little more believable than I initially thought. The previews made it seem like he just walked into a Harvard teaching gig from private practice or radio psychiatry or whatever, but if he had been more of a high profile celebrity then that makes sense.
In the real world, the job a psychiatrist would get at Harvard would be a lecturer and attending physician at the med school, and that would most likely go to someone who had actually been practicing and publishing within his clinical field, not in a flashy radio or TV job that has little to do with actual psychiatry.I liked the original Frasier show, but the one complaint I always had was that the character of Frasier Crane, MD psychiatrist from Cheers was always proud to be a man of science, so it never really felt right that he would give up his clinical practice to become what is essentially a radio Dr. Phil (albeit a Dr. Phil who actually has the proper credentials).But of course, this is TV, so anything is possible.
Regarding the second paragraph, I absolutely get that but I feel like they kind of addressed it with the way Niles looked down on radio psychiatry, and then filled in for Frasier, and absolutely loved doing it. I always felt like the writers were telling us, “This is how he got sucked in.” And then when he filled in on a morning TV show, it further hammered home just how much Frasier loves the attention and fame.
Exactly – he’s a man of science but also vain AF. How could he not love being a media celebrity?
Yeah, seems like this is a direct line off of Frasier’s discovery in that sequence of episodes that he really really loved the even bigger spotlight he got from being on TV, even more than the relatively bigger spotlight he’d gotten from radio over private practice.
I think there’s also the idea that Frasier has an outsized idea of his impact on the world. (In one episode he believes that an ornamental door knocker he wants to put up will cause Zen-like ripples of happiness in his apartment building.) I think he could rationalise any level of populism if he thought it would spread psychological help to the masses.
“I think he could rationalise any level of populism if he thought it would spread psychological help to the masses.”
It’s a wonder he hasn’t run for office!
i’ve been doing a rewatch, and in the 2nd episode the Crane brothers are expressing their admiration for Stanislav Grof – exactly the sort of new-ager that guys with their credentials would hate in real life. And the show takes place in the 90’s Platonic ideal of Seattle. The stage-y, psuedo-reality of sitcoms has always been part of their charm.
“In the real world, the job a psychiatrist would get at Harvard would be a lecturer and attending physician at the med school, and that would most likely go to someone who had actually been practicing and publishing within his clinical field, not in a flashy radio or TV job that has little to do with actual psychiatry.”Eh, Harvard isn’t above tossing classes or lectureships at famous-enough celebrities, and if Frasier is truly Dr. Phil-level famous it doesn’t stretch credulity for him to secure a gig teaching “Media Representations of Psychology” or something. I liked the original Frasier show, but the one complaint I always had was that the character of Frasier Crane, MD psychiatrist from Cheers was always proud to be a man of science, so it never really felt right that he would give up his clinical practice to become what is essentially a radio Dr. Phil (albeit a Dr. Phil who actually has the proper credentials). It’s kind of handwaved away as Frasier’s massive ego attracting him to fame*, along with the subtext of him seeking a completely clean break after the collapse of his life in Boston—new city, new career, etc. Frasier “selling out” and abandoning his practice does come up fairly frequently, typically in the form of snippy comments from Niles. There’s also an arc later on where Frasier opens a new practice…on the same floor as Niles’s! Hijinks ensue, etc.*The outsized level of “fame” achieved by regional radio hosts is another thing we’re just supposed to roll with.
That plant needed a little more light
Didn’t he also go to Harvard? That would obviously contribute to his attractiveness as a professor.
Yep. Wasn’t one of the running gags that Frasier went to Harvard and Niles went to Yale, just to add to their sibling rivalry? And honestly, if Dr. Phil is the closest comparison for what they’re going for, I could *absolutely* see North Texas (obviously, UNT is not on the same level as Harvard but you get the point) being willing to let Dr. Phil come back and be a lecturer since he got his degree there. And to be clear: I only know Dr. Phil got his psychology degree from UNT because I just looked it up to complete the comparison here. You can’t prove otherwise.
I’ll have to take your word for it that Dr. Phil got a degree anywhere.
Hey, I’m just as shocked as you are. I always figured his “Dr.” title was just as fake as mine.
Next thing you’ll tell me Bill Cosby didn’t earn his doctorate either!
I could buy it back in the 90s. That was the heyday of local radio celebrities, some of whom launched into wider careers. Shock jocks, raging assholes like Rush Limbaugh, etc.
Dr. Laura. She made millions.
Harvard isn’t above tossing classes or lectureships at famous-enough celebritiesI visited Boston about 20 years ago and bumped into visiting lecturer at the Kennedy School of Government, Jesse Ventura.
Psychiatry isn’t even a science. It’s a branch of medical science, currently exploding with more quakery than ever before and determined to make sure the populace is as compliant as possible. No, I’m not a scientologist.
Because Harvard is so well-known for its celebrity professors?
Satan works in mysterious ways.
“the retired TV star…” So, I guess you aren’t watching that intently.
Fans of the original will know that the plot shifts and changes each week. Every episode is a standalone story, throwing our characters into a series of predicaments—an emotionally charged quiz night, an elite invite-only club, a night cooking cassoulet at the fire station—and waiting to see how they’ll muddle their way out of them. It’s cozily low-stakes stuff.Man it’s wild reading someone describe the concept of a sitcom like it’s some kind of novelty. Truly we are living in the Era of Serialization. Hell, even Freddy feels like a stranger[sic] How did that—whisper it—incredibly irksome little boy grow up to be Mr. July in the Boston Fire Department’s charity calendar? What caused the mathlete and spelling-bee aficionado to drop out of college? And how did Frasier Crane and Lilith Stern’s son grow up to be so damn well adjusted?This is my biggest stumbling block with the new series. The Freddy of Frasier was about like one would expect the child of Frasier and Lilith to be – intelligent, awkward, slightly doofy-looking, etc. I can buy him growing up to be better-adjusted than his parents, I can maybe even buy him burning out and dropping out of college, but growing into Generic Hunk Fireman just doesn’t track for me.
Grammar: “My highly educated, intelligent son grows up to become a himbo firefighter.”Host: “I’m laughing already!”Grammar: “It’s not a comedy.”
Ehhh people still know how sitcoms work (beyond Rez Dogs and What We do in the Shadows being two contemporary shows which fit that mold, we do still watch reruns of old sitcoms); the writer is just struggling to hit a word count lol.
boy the opening paragraphs just drawwwwwwww the analogy out.
“Ugh, you’re not going to like our NYPD Shoe analogy. It’s basically the same bit.”
thankfully for those who have never experienced a metaphor before, they let us know Frasier is the shoe.
Actually, I think WWDITS, particularly in later seasons, is way more serialized than Frasier, or practically any other sitcom. Haven’t seen Rez Dogs, though, so I can’t compare. It’s mostly just funny to see “different things happen and every episode is a standalone story” described as some uniquely Frasier formula.
I’d also point out: that wasn’t entirely true of Frasier (or a lot of other sitcoms of the era), either. Yes, most A-plots were standalone, but there was almost always a B-plot or a runner that helped move the overall story forward, like the obvious one of Niles and Daphne spanning seasons 6-7, or the season where Frasier loses his job and is struggling with depression and he and Roz are trying to find new jobs, etc. Or when Frasier was dating Virginia Madsen and Amy Brenneman at the same time and trying to juggle them, etc. Or Niles and Maris divorcing, him losing everything, etc, which spanned several episodes (some of my favorites of the entire run, like Niles living in a shitty apartment complex run by Mike McShane, and so on.
Yep! Between job changes, relationships, new locations, to straight-up two-parters, lots of 90s/00s sitcoms had multi-episode runners and arcs.
I like the idea of starting every review by catching up the reader on just what a “story” is.
Catching up on WWDITS season 5, the runner of Guillermo having become a vampire is always in the background, and it drives several of the key season episodes (especially Lazlo experimenting).Rez Dogs is hardly a “reset to status quo” show. There are ongoing threads and relationships change and evolve; events lead into the next. There are consequences to character actions. I think the author is confusing something INCREDIBLY serialized, where all 6-10 episodes are essentially one long movie with “individual episodes have beginning/middle/end plots but still carry on the larger threads.” Literally the story of the three seasons of Reservation Dogs is the four core characters growing up and dealing with their trauma; building community; the older community members and elders and aunties and uncles starting to grow and change. Bear’s mom, Rita, has a strong character arc. It’s not “serialized” or “Simpsons esque reset button” with nothing in between. I might submit that, in the streaming era, a lot of shows have struggled with making INDIVIDUAL episodes strong On Their Own; that doesn’t mean the episodes are “standalone.” Bojack Horseman has very clear ongoing arcs and plotting; it also treats each episode as a single “story” in the larger story.
The Office faux documentary style displaced sitcoms. It would be a mistake to suggest its part of sitcoms.
It would be a mistake to conflate format with genre; The Office is definitely a sitcom and is widely known as one.
Freddy on Frasier also wasn’t a little kid when Frasier ended – He was 16 years old when the show ended. You can make the case he found himself and got in shape, but he wouldn’t be a rube. He would still go toe to toe with Frasier in quoting psychology etc. which could be fun, but isn’t what they seem to be doing.I almost feel like having David be the anti-Frasier/Niles would make more sense because at least he had Daphne there raising him lol
It really annoys me that they didn’t stick with Trevor Einhorn, he was amazing in The Magicians and I’d much rather have seen him take on the role than a newcomer.Also, fuck, I really miss The Magicians. It’s about the only SyFy show I’ve been really impressed by, and it’s beyond shitty that they didn’t give us a final season of the show.
Oh man, I totally forgot about that. For SURE casting Einhorn again would have made sense and also been a neat gimmick. Plus, he’s just a really great comedic actor, so it’s not like he wouldn’t have fit in well. (I love love love The Magicians as well.)
I feel like I can see Freddy growing up to become this sort of person, but not linearly. Like, there’s some steps we haven’t seen here. Which actually makes for perfect room for a show to develop, there’s unused runway there, but only time will tell if they actually do.
I really hope that the change in Freddy is explained. I can buy that he rebelled against his parents’ expectations. They put immense pressure on him, even as a small boy, there’s examples of it through ot the series like insisting on STEM, learning toys vs the most in demand toy, the amount of work they bought in to get him into an elite private school, vacations that involved archeology or museums, enrolling in national spelling bees, etc. We did see Freddy act more like a “normal” kid like wanting the Outlaw Laser Robo-Geek, manipulating his parents to try to get a electric scooter and his goth phase.
So they basically created a young version of Freddy’s grandfather, Martin, for Frazier to try to relate with?
I’d forgotten how well-written and acted the original was. It was literally my favorite sitcom for years… and I just forgot about it?
This is just me spitballing, but I think Frasier had an unfortunately perfect formula to slide out of the collective image of ‘what sitcoms were like’ of the era. It has a little bit of the ‘family sitcoms’ before it, a little bit of the ‘people of different lives just bouncing off each other in the big city’ that 90s and early 2000s were mostly like, and even a bit of the workplace sitcoms that would follow it (and that preceded it, although those were very different sorts of approaches), but it’s not enough like any of them to fit into those lineages… while also not being enough unlike any of them to quite exist as the counter-voice.It’s a fantastic show, but it can be forgotten from a certain view of the history of sitcoms because it just doesn’t really fit into the evolution of the genre.
That’s how I am about Wings. When I was watching it in real time broadcast, it was as good as sitcoms get, and then you don’t find it in syndication and it lapses from your consciousness. Once or twice a year I recall ‘gee I wish I could dial up a Wings marathon.’
I did find Wings on somewhere in syndication. Maybe one of those digital-antenna channels that shows loads of old reruns. (I don’t remember when or where, since I usually only check out those channels when I’m visiting family.)
I’m a huge Frasier fan, but would never be able to watch it without Martin or Niles.
Didn’t watch Frasier much, but I always remember this Niles line:
I met someone once flying home from college. I got bumped into first
class, found myself sitting there next to a positively ravishing woman.
She was a bit older and I was trying desperately to be suave, so when
she leaned over and suggested we join the Mile High Club, rather than
admit I was unfamiliar with the term, I whispered back, “I really don’t
travel enough to make that worthwhile.” God, that was twenty years ago. Nope, still can’t laugh about it.
Impeccably delivered by DHP.
The biggest question I’ve had is exactly what you mention: how the hell did Frederick fucking “please stuff me in a locker” Crane become a buff, beer-swilling fireman?That aside, I remember not being immediately sold on Frasier (I mean, I was like 12 or 13 when it first came out but had grown up watching Cheers with my parents), and when I rewatch old episodes there are only like one or two in the first season I watch, so I’m gonna be pretty lenient with this one and hope that someone truly emerges. As great as Kelsey is in the lead role, he was never and has never been the element that draws me back time and again; Niles and Martin and Roz and Daphne were always what made it such great TV comfort food for me.
…how the hell did Frederick fucking “please stuff me in a locker” Crane become a buff, beer-swilling fireman?
Frederick realized that if he got buff and drank a bunch of beer, he’d no longer fit in a locker. Also, he probably realized that being trapped in a locker is not unlike being trapped in a burning building, and so he decided to dedicate his life to firefighting.
Why do we all rebel against our parents. He went to college, smoked some weed, hooked up with a cute person whos politics and values are the polar opposite of how you were raised.
Fair. Funnily enough I was just re-watching the trailer a minute ago, and that same thought popped into my head; I guess years of Frasier and Lilith controlling his life finally caught up to him/them and he decided enough was enough.Or, my alternate theory: this is “original” Freddie, the one who wanted the Outlaw Laser Robo-Geek for Christmas instead of STEM stuff, and the reason they’ve been estranged is because Original Freddie was upset that his parents traded him in for a new kid who aligned more with their passions and interests, and had the audacity to even call the new kid Frederick, too.
I guess years of Frasier and Lilith controlling his life finally caught up to him/them and he decided enough was enough.I can get behind this if he still acts like he was raised by Lilith meaning you can see that he’s booksmart and educated and can still quote a bunch of psychology at his dad etc. Then you can play up the “I chose this” scenario as opposed to acting like Freddy was 5 and not 16 when the show ended.
I would also accept a flash back where Freddy suffers a traumatic brain injury and complete changes character as well
Spike through the head Phineas Gage style and it’s still in.
I was watching a later Freddy episode recently, and I’d never noticed that he had an Xbox.Intellectually I know when the show was on, but that was so jarring.
Which I would accept if Freddy hadn’t already gone through a goth phase on Frasier because he was trying to impress someone and learned a valuable lesson about wanting to stay in his lane lol
Oddly enough, I can see Freddy becoming a firefighter as the opposite of rebelling against his dad, using a theme from the original ‘Frasier’. There’s an episode where Frasier reminisces about playing with Martin’s badge when he was a kid, only to be told that it was not a toy, but a symbol of responsibility. That inspires Frasier to approach his own life with integrity. Freddy could easily become a firefighter out of a wish to help people just like his father had, just in a different way.
Honestly you can see it as both honoring his father by also wanting to help others but also rebelling by going with a more blue collar approach like his Grandfather. There is depth that could be found but I doubt this cash in spin off is gonna go there
He didn’t.They just re-cast the role.
Ah, I liked that guy on Mad Men. Honestly, casting a short softboy as a beer-swilling firefighter would’ve been interesting, and you’d feel a real familial “same but different” vibe between him and Frasier.
I’m not sure where the “buff” comes from. But the beer swilling and the diversion away from intellectual pursuits? That’s easy; he met one of Dad’s old buddies.
Just patiently waiting for when Frasier goes to his old bar…..
I’m getting first season of Picard vibes out of this, where the star is adamant that he won’t do this thing that everyone really wants him to do and then after two lackluster seasons he’ll finally relent and go “Fine, we’ll bring back all the old cast” and everyone will actually like it.
Woody Harrelson should still be there
it took less than half the first season of the original Frasier for it to be apparent that they’d lucked out on an ideal cast to bounce off one another. I’m willing to see this one through (this season is only ten episodes anyway) to see if they can find a comparable rhythm with the new cast.But dear god please find excuses to bring back Niles and Daphne at some point!
I had not read yet that Niles and Daphne’s son was going to be on the show, and frankly I just assume they included him as even more of an excuse to try to coax those two back for a couple guest episodes at some point.
Hyde-Pierce has apparently made it clear he’s not interested so I wouldn’t hold your breath on that one. But yeah, the original cast all seemed like fully-formed characters who brought something unique to the environment.
Oh, for sure. And honestly, Niles not returning was very nearly a dealbreaker for me, especially with John Mahoney having passed so my two favorite characters won’t be in the show. But I guarantee at least *part* of the reason they included Niles and Daphne’s son was what they hoped might be a little bit more enticement. Not that I believe for a second it would/will work.
Hyde-Pierce came out and the last time I checked Grammar was still supporting the fascist thugs who’d like to strip LGBT+ people of all civil rights. There’s probably some tension in that relationship.
I remember reading that originally Grammer was against the Daphne character, because he thought the wacky maid bit was an over-used cliche, but the producers pushed him to test with Jane Leeves. He did one run through, and was like, “Okay, she’s perfect.”
I don’t know why I hadn’t realized this sooner, but it was almost an immediate no from me once it clicked that the bulk of the original cast wouldn’t be back.Buuut Toks Olagundoye is fantastic, so I’ll give it a few episodes.
I’m not sure I had any interest in the update, but the trailer looks surprisingly solid. I’ll give it a shot.
If he’s in Boston he should visit Cheers
No Niles, no thanks.
Based on the trailer and this review I predict a ratings hit and four seasons of this thing.
Okay, so I watched the trailer and “Not in jeans.” got a good laugh out of me.
I can’t tell if I thought it was actually kinda funny, or it was the nostalgia of hearing Kelsey taking *that* tone again in his delivery.
I wonder if any reviewer attempted to watch the final episode of Fraiser 1.0 and then immediately switch to the new iteration — and how it worked (or didn’t). I think most fans are bummed about the original cast being mostly absent, but Fraiser (the original) thrived by aggressively turning its back on Cheers and forging its own way. There was even an episode where Woody visited and both he and Fraiser quickly found out they didn’t have anything in common beyond playing ‘remember when.’The new Fraiser should do the same and let the new cast create its own magic. It could take longer than 10 episodes, as it often did in the classic linear TV days. The problem with streaming is that any viewer now or in the future will begin with episode 1, season 1, rather than perhaps dipping in 5 or more eps in, when things get humming. That makes it harder to bring in new casual viewers.
Explain to me how a new show featuring the same actor playing the same character as the original, continuing in the same universe and continuing the story from the original, is a REBOOT.
I’m willing to bet that’s got something to do with them referring to their Seattle hangout as “Café Nervoso”.The is the neo-AV Club: anything that doesn’t trend on the top 10 hashtags on TikTok isn’t worth doing either any research or taking seriously – what, you want the 36-year-old content millers to get teased by a 15-year-old makeup kween with self-diagnosed OCD/PTSD/ADHD in a 43-secod vertical video?
The same way iCarly was. (and that was also a show where the actor playing the sidekick character refused to come back and had to be awkwardly written out)
You want to bet on a dude fucking an alligator… Money Plane.
The Salad Tosser himself!
Fraisier was old the first time. An old fashioned loveable ass sitcom right out of the glory days of Desilu. Fraiser turned up in Seattle nursing a not so secret desire to be a “regular guy” and earn the love of his dad and respect of others. This conflicted with his snobbery and created lots of fun to exploit tension as he struggled to balance things. The others could laugh at his occasional pretension, and then express affection as he learned better ways. The thing that made it work so well- the people behind it were past masters of the format. And they had the wisdom to give the supporting cast members their own learning curves. Daphne started out as a wierdo- visions, “strange” foreign ways. Niles started out as the effete sounding board for Fraiser- to counter plain and simple Martin- as examples. Martin turned out to be far more complicated than he appeared, Niles far less- where Frasier wanted to be what he fantasized as normal, Niles just wanted romance- and Daphne (and Roz) developed into self actualized characters along the way. Could it work as well again? Certainly.Will it? Well. First time around, while audiences were familiar with Frazier, he wasn’t the lead character. Frazier didn’t inhabit the center stage of Cheers, and the audience could sort of grow into the version of the character presented. This time. audiences are very familiar, and they have expectations. My guess? If it survives the first season, it goes at least three.
Most of my life, I thought “hoi polloi” meant the elite, not the opposite.Maybe my dad used it that way. Anyway, the real meaning seems wrong.Like “nonplussed”.I just googled “nonplussed, and now I’m even more confused.
I think people have an instinctual [wrong] impulse to assume that hoi polloi and ‘high falutin’ have to share an etymology.
Yeah, I think that’s it. That sort of word anyway.
Any opinions on nonplussed? I always assumed it was definition 2 above, then I read it was definition 1, and they seem like opposites.Definition 2 could be “not nonplussed”.
I think (but don’t quote me on this) the second meaning is just an accepted definition that’s come from the word being used incorrectly for long enough that it’s gained legitimacy. It’s kind of like how the word “anticipated”, which used to have the specific meaning of “preempted” (“I’ve anticipated your request and gathered the files you’ll need”), has now come to mean “looked forward to” (“The highly anticipated movie premiere”).
I think two things are at play. One, the term isn’t used enough in clear situations to have a strong consensus meaning. This gives rise to an ambiguity to meaning arising from the ambiguity regarding the actual gravity of the thing being described itself. Non plus itself derives from Latin/French to literally mean ‘no more,’ as in ‘I’m at my limit and have had enough.’ This has colloquially developed to mean a state of bewilderment that surpasses comprehension. But there is ambiguity in how one responses to being bewildered or confused to the point of reaching a limit, one can go into hysterics or catatonia. That is, one can respond emotionally [what the heck is going on] or one can respond resignedly [welp, that’s the world now]. In short, all nonplussed people are confused by events, some are energetic and expressive in their confusion, and some are docile and resigned to the confusion.
Or it might be the similarity between hoi polloi and “hoity toity”
What is it about the repeated oi sound that makes you think “classy”?
Like “hoity toity”?
Frasier must have made bank when he was in private practice and then invested it well to have become this rich because I can’t see being a talk radio shrink in a single market being the road to wealth.
You clearly don’t remember that the Dr. Frasier Crane show expanded to Spokane 🙂
And parts. Of. Canada!
Fun fact! Basic cable here in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, includes the American network stations out of Spokane.
That is fun. I’ve lived in the Detroit area most of my life and have always been accustomed to having CBC available from Windsor.
It’s weird seeing the weather reports though. Temperatures in Fahrenheit always sound so hellish to me.
One advantage of Fahrenheit is slightly more precision. A while back I spent a couple of weeks in England for work. I could never get the thermostat set how I like it. There is significantly more difference in one degree Celsius than one degree Fahrenheit. Maybe some thermostats in Celsius have half degree adjustments, but the ones I saw did not. Regarding the weather on TV, our local news shows weather for both Michigan and across the border. They actually show the Canadian temps in Celsius. I’m not sure when they made the switch, but I’m sure the Canadians who watch that channel appreciate it.
I read another review that said he moved to Chicago in between the series-es and became a syndicated TV host, which is where all the money comes from.
That Judge Judy money. That’ll do it.
They lost me at:He’s back in Boston. He’s now a barfly at a different bar.
I ain’t seen no tossed salads! I been watching this old windbag for YEARS and I’m waiting for him to toss a single salad!
I know it’s 2023 and we’re not supposed to kink shame, but…
In the process, the retired TV starRetired radio star, right?
Does the Frasier/Freddie relationship ever address the fact that Frasier was an absentee father? I always thought it was funny how you had to sort of ignore the fact that Frasier was a terrible father to enjoy the original series.
From what I’ve read elsewhere it sounds like they’ve been (at least somewhat) estranged, and part of the reason for Frasier’s move to Boston in this series is to try to repair his relationship with Freddy.
Do they address why he’s not drinking at Cheers?
Well, it looks better than the Murphy Brown revival, anyway
Too bad, the show is just awful.
I really wanted to like it, but you’re right. The actor playing Freddie is just terrible. He has no timing, charisma, or tension between how smart he is and his current job. The premise is unbelievable in so many ways. Ughhh.