Frasier director James Burrows doesn’t know if sitcoms have a future
There used to be "three networks and 30 great comedy writers. Now we have 500 networks and 30 great comedy writers," the director said
Aux News James Burrows
When even James Burrows—the man behind the camera on Cheers, Will & Grace, Friends, and more—expresses doubt about the future of the sitcom, it’s clear that the format really is in crisis.
“When I started out in the 70s, there were three networks and 30 great comedy writers. Now we have 500 networks and 30 great comedy writers. The product is not going to be as good,” Burrows said in a recent interview with The Guardian. “It’s unfortunate, but anybody with an iPhone can make a show, and that’s what we’re dealing with now. I don’t know if sitcoms are ever going to be back, I really don’t.”
Burrows, at least, is doing his part by directing the first two episodes of the upcoming Frasier reboot, even though he “had nothing to do with the writing of the pilot” and “was just handed a script.” (“When Kelsey calls, you say yes!” he said.) Still, the modern sitcom landscape is increasingly turning away from original concepts and towards re-treads like this, many of which can’t even make it past a handful of seasons, if they get that kind of bandwidth at all.
Studio executives are also at fault for this decrease in quality, Burrows said, citing the myriad of instigators behind the recently-ended writers strike. “You have people who are running the business now who don’t really understand the business. They just throw shit against the wall and see what sticks,” he said.
Burrows is even unsure of Frasier Crane’s future. “I’m not sanguine about the product lasting,” he said. Still, “it was a wonderful two weeks with my old friend, my old crew, some I’d been working with since Cheers.”
Frasier returns October 12 on Paramount+. You can watch a trailer for the season below:
50 Comments
Burrows, at least, is doing his part by directing the first two episodes of the upcoming Frasier reboot, even though he “had nothing to do with the writing of the pilot” and “was just handed a script.”The director is already distancing himself. Always a good sign.
It’s a sitcom. The directing is necessarily the most important part
The teasers look awful—-hopefully that isn’t the “best scenes” of the reboot.Somehow I don’t see this succeeding without Niles and Daphne.Not much they could do about Daddy Crane, though.
“Frasier” without Niles is…definitely not the same. I assume they moved this to Boston to 1. Explain away the absence of Niles and Daphne and 2. Leave the door open for any Cheers cast members to make guest appearances. But I don’t know if that was a good idea. Better to put the character in a completely different location than to have everyone constantly saying, “Where are the people/situations I’m familiar with?” That’s what they did the before, and it worked.
Moving it from Seattle made total sense without that being the reason. Did you not watch the finale of the original series?
He goes to Chicago in the finale.
That was kind of the point of my comment? That he moved from Seattle. Yes, it was to Chicago, but it’s feasible that he moved again at some point in the last 20 years.
I have seen the finale, but I don’t remember it at all. Looking it up, I see it ended with him moving to San Francisco. Not Boston. Like I said, the reason they set this in Boston probably had at least a bit to do with wanting Cheers cast members to guest star
Not that it really matters, but I just rewatched the series and he went to Chicago at the last minute. I definitely agree with why they chose Boston, but he did already move at the end of the original, so I don’t really see it as a copout to move him away from Niles. I apologize if I came off as an asshole in my first post.
I absolutely don’t see it as a cop out, but I’m sure that if David Hyde Pierce and Jane Leaves had been down for this, they would have just had Frasier move back to Seattle. Since they weren’t, they could have put the show in any city in the country but Seattle, and I can’t help but think that Boston was their choice because of the nostalgia factor. Well, that and the fact that it’s the place that it makes the most sense for Freddie and Lilith to be, but again, that’s not too hard to write around. Maybe Freddie moves to Chicago to be with his dad exactly the way Frasier did for Martin. Maybe Freddie is living someplace completely random and Frasier decides to move in with him. I kind of think it would be a neat little Easter egg/call-back to set it in Kansas City, where “Cheers” was set when it was still in development.
Kansas City would have been interesting, but it’s hard to imagine what would have drawn a wannabe socialite like Frasier there lol.
More likely than the other city they originally considered setting Cheers in. Barstow. Which I believe Frasier would have actually burst into flames if he’d ever entered.
“Frasier” without Niles is…definitely not the same. I assume they moved this to Boston to 1. Explain away the absence of Niles and Daphne and 2. Leave the door open for any Cheers cast members to make guest appearances. But I don’t know if that was a good idea. Better to put the character in a completely different location than to have everyone constantly saying, “Where are the people/situations I’m familiar with?” That’s what they did the before, and it worked.
Personally I prefer it that they aren’t just doing a victory-lap reboot with Niles and Daphne. It’s literally a new show with the same name and central character. This is more or less what OG Frasier was, relative to Cheers. It’s at least slightly more ambitious for them to imagine what he might be up to in another city, with new friends and family two decades on, than to just go back to a tapped well.Still—this show doesn’t look so hot, which is all down to writing and casting. They struck gold once and it’s hard to do it twice. So I applaud the approach but not necessarily the outcome. I think they had both a higher ceiling and a lower floor going this route, as opposed to a straight reboot which would almost certainly have gotten reviews like, “It’s funny, it’s comfort food, it’s just not as good as the old show… B-.”
Yeah, between that and him not being “sanguine about the product lasting” I think we can safely assume that Burrows thinks the Frasier reboot is a stinker.
This is why I don’t stream—it just ain’t worth it. Too few good programs strung out between too many streamers, so eff it, don’t do it all.
It’s wild how difficult people find it to sign up for one streamer for a month and watch the 1-3 shows you’re interested in. Then pick a new service next month.
It’s extremely easy to do that but it can feel like a massive soul-sucking chore at the same time. Staying on top of that, just for things to watch, can be really annoying especially if it’s an account multiple people use.
Or pick a service with several shows you’d like to watch and subscribe for a month and then cancel. You’re missing out on some truly excellent shows if you never check out any streaming exclusive, and for the price of a movie ticket it’s a no-brainer in terms of value.
The problem streamers have is that they’ve had to license all of their hit sitcoms (before their original owners snapped them back up, a la Peacock and The Office). Sitcoms are relatively cheap to produce and can, if done right in the classic mode, churn out immense numbers of episodes that can create a reason for subscribers to remain subscribed for access. People who subscribed to Netflix for The Office back in the day didn’t bounce off when they got to the final episode. They just circled right back to the beginning — and kept their sub current. Streamers need their own sitcoms and 22-episode hour-long dramas (as evidenced by Suits and Gilmore Girls dominating on Netflix). The best part is, once those shows are created, no licensing fees need to be paid out. The investment benefits can be kept in-house. Shows that spit out 8 episodes every 2 years are just not going to keep people hooked to these platforms, especially as prices keep escalating.
“Shows that spit out 8 episodes every 2 years are just not going to keep people hooked to these platforms, especially as prices keep escalating.” WELL SAID AND SPOT ON. I am an old. I want more original content and 8 episodes every 2 years is terriable. People keep talking about how great tv is and how much there is but it is mostly old stuff we have seen already. if you magically took off all but new content from the streaming platform there would be less new stuff and an average 3 network week in the mid 1980s. Others argue that 8 episodes are just better as they do not need to drag out stories and fill time. I am tired of tv being all miniseries all the time. Like if in the 70s and 80s it was all reruns between the 1-3 miniseries/year for year after year.
Ideally we could have both. It’s true that a tight count can generate really unique viewing experiences, but viewers clearly like volume A LOT.
yes! I would rather have stuff to watch that is new and not multiple streaming platforms full of stuff I already have seen. 8 good episodes then a 2 year wait is not enough.
I don’t know if shows only lasting a few seasons is a bad thing. A show that runs forever is a soap opera and while a lot of the criticism of those is rooted in misogyny some of it is for the fact that the open ended nature of the format makes it impossible to ever satisfactorily conclude a character arc or even show permanent growth or change because all of those things will be thrown by the wayside the second someone comes up with a plot that’ll get eyeballs, even if it makes no sense.Of course if the creators don’t know when the show will end they can’t try to use a limited amount of episodes to get to the conclusions they hopefully thought about when writing the first season. The producers need to be more transparent about their expectations for viewers and what they’re prepared to contribute as far as time and resources. For their part the creators need to start thinking about their first two seasons or so as a coherent story so that they can get it all out. Maybe write out all the high points of the plot, set it up on a timeline and keep in touch with the execs so you know if you’re going to get picked up and need to start coming up with some episodes that add to the world or give depth to the characters and their motivations rather than primarily moving the plot forward. I don’t think anyone making story driven content today should expect to be able to string along an audience for years or go into the job without a clear idea where the narrative is going and how it gets there.
Do you think it’s possible to make a good show that doesn’t rely on an overarching plot today? Shows like Frasier were reliant on a good cast that people wanted to invite into their homes every week. Niles and Daphne getting together later changed the dynamic in a way that I think wrecked the chemistry of the show. I guess they couldn’t have just kept doing the same thing over and over again.
Right there you explained what happened to Supernatural after the natural ending of season 5.It’s a shame.
Why are we just taking this guy’s word for it that there are only 30 great sitcom writers? I’d suggest (also without evidence) that there have ALWAYS been way more great TV writers than that – they just had no opportunity when there were only three networks.There may be 10 times as many bad shows now, but there are also 10 times as many great shows.
Yeah, that is just silly. Even if he is right that there were only 30 good sitcom writers in the 70’s (doubtful), the US population is currently about 1.6x higher today than in 1975, so it stands to reason that there are at least 48 good sitcom writers around today.
And it seems like there are fewer sitcoms now, so those 48 writers should have it covered.
And given the fact that 70s writers rooms were predominantly white men who made up 40 percent of the US population in 1970, there were probably always at least 70 or so good writers even in 1970, even if you assume his assessment is accurate but limited by the racism and misogyny of the time. No point in doing the math, but that means something like 100 or so after correcting for your 1.6X population alongside the correction for demographics.And while I don’t know about straight up sitcoms, there’s been some great comedy writing in the last few years. A lot of those 70s and 80s sitcoms were stale even then and can’t hold a candle IMO to e.g. a Fleabag or a Crazy Ex Girlfriend or a Party Down, none of which would have likely gotten made in the 70s and 80s.
Excellent points on demographics!I don’t know what most people consider to be sitcoms, but in my eyes it simply means a fictional comedy series on tv.
There are two paths to becoming a comedy writer for TV. You can be a popular standup comic or you can go to Harvard. If they wanted to find more than 30 they easily could, but they’re not interested in looking.
Wouldn’t dilution of talent be an issue for all genres? They make a lot more dramas now too. That doesn’t mean there are more good drama writers.
No disrespect to Burrows but he’s been phoning it in for two decades now and has worked on some really godawful shows for the simple reason he loves his job. Fair enough, but without a great cast and good writing he’s really just a journeyman getting the train out of the station on time.“Frasier” succeeded because it had perhaps the best cast of any sitcom since “Cheers” and some great writers under the guidance of David Angell. After Angell died on one of the World Trade Center planes the show coasted along OK for a few more seasons but never really had the same sparkle. It was always watchable because, my god, that cast, but it was a shadow of itself by the end and I say that as someone who has the whole show on DVD.The promos for this are just bland, particularly the supporting cast and the writing is merely fanfic quality. I kinda don’t blame anyone for taking a stab at this but they really needed an A-list writers room and a once-in-a-lifetime cast to pull it off and I don’t see a hint of either here.
I wish they had just called this show something else. Frasier without Niles, Daphne, Roz, Martin, Eddie, or, heck, 1901 Elliot Bay Towers or Cafe Nervosa just doesn’t feel like Frasier. In fact, it feels like Kelsey Grammer doing a guest spot as Frasier on an episode of How I Met Your Mother. I’d more readily accept this if they called it Scrambled Eggs or something, because it’s really as much a spin-off from Frasier as Frasier was from Cheers, just with the same character.
They should call it Daddy Issues.
Kelsey’s Kash In
Star Trek: Bateson
It is canon they are the same character. I can prove it.
‘Frajure’.
We just need to pronounce it differently, so it rhymes with crazier.
Angell not dying tragically certainly couldn’t have hurt, but by then season 8 (the first one after Daphne and Niles became a thing) was in the bag, and it seems to be regarded as one of the show’s worst (which means the quality of the writing was only a lot higher than other sitcoms, not astronomically higher).Niles and Daphne getting together, as cathartic as it was, was really the point where the proverbial dog (er. Eddie, I guess) caught the car. They desperately needed to do something to shake up the show at that point, like introduce a new main character to create fresh comedic tension with the cast.
I don’t want to disrespect Angell, but I think it had also more or less run its course by that time. I just rewatched it for the who knows what time, and I think it fell in the trap that many great shows do and didn’t know when to quit. I agree with you, it’s not like it was bad, but it had certainly run out of steam. That’s one thing Seinfeld (whose cast was maybe better than Frasier’s) did well.
this guy sounds like an elitist asshole
He’s a very wealthy guy in his 80s so…
They should have named the show “Frasier Goes Back down I-90 all the Way”, or “Frasier 2: Back To The Well”
“When I started out in the 70s, there were three networks and 30 great comedy writers. Now we have 500 networks and 30 great comedy writers. The product is not going to be as good.”Look, Burrows is a fixture of comedic television and directed hundreds of episodes of shows I love, but this attitude reeks of “Old Man Yells At Cloud” syndrome. There’s plenty of great comedic shows out there today, he just doesn’t find them humorous because they’re what he was raised on and directed for so many years.
(“When Kelsey calls, you say yes!” he said.)
Kelsey: Hey Jim, wanna work on a live-action version of “Gary the Rat”?Burrows: *imitates phone static* Sorry Kelsey… *imitates phone static* …can’t hear you, got a bad connection… *imitates phone static, hangs up, blocks Kelsey’s number*
Friendly reminder that James Burrows is now 82, so a certain amount of “old man huffing and puffing at cloud” energy shouldn’t be too unexpected.
“When Kelsey calls, you say yes!”
Really? Even if he’s calling to ask you if you’d like to watch An American Carol?