Why the hell do we still care about Frasier Crane?
As Kelsey Grammer prepares to revive his most famous character for a third TV show, we have one question: Him?
TV Features Frasier
Last month marked the 39th anniversary of the debut of Frasier Crane, a character whom Kelsey Grammer has now been playing, with some notable gaps, for more than half of his total time on Earth. This month, meanwhile, marks the end of one such lacuna, as Paramount+ releases the second TV show to bear the name Frasier and the third to feature Grammer as the character in a starring role. Returning to the world as a much older man, the new Frasier carries at least a whiff of the old one, with Dr. Crane arriving in a new-old town (his former Cheers stomping ground of Boston) to address a broken father-son relationship—this time, with his own adult son, Frederick (Jack Cutmore-Scott). Trailers for the show suggest that the series will follow at least some of the rhythms of the original, with a whole new generation of friends and family members lovingly having the crap annoyed out of them by one of TV’s most dedicated snobs.
Which raises the question: What, exactly, is it about this obnoxious, pretentious, condescending asshole that we all like so much? Paramount+ clearly believes there’s enough fan enthusiasm out in the ether to support Grammer’s long-held dreams of a reboot, and anecdotal evidence—the Frasier binge being a regular step on many an online addict’s streaming pilgrimage—suggests they might be right. Because the fact is that, even if Frasier himself is rarely its best part (something that doesn’t bode all that well for a reboot where he’s the only returning main character, by the by), Frasier remains a shockingly good example of the sitcom form. Strip off years of stereotyping and assumptions, complaints about the dog, Grammer’s own baggage, and more, and it’s still a show that resonates with people almost 20 years after its much-loved finale first aired.
So, let’s look back at a show that averaged more than three Emmy wins per season for a staggering 11 years, and which is apparently still so potent that it can bring tossed salads and scrambled eggs back to the people nearly two decades after the fact. Why this show? Why this guy? Why do Frasier, and Frasier, persist?
A matter of character
Sitcoms live and die on character. Jokes come and go, wacky situations are a dime a dozen, but character dynamics power everything. And the first Frasier established a doozy in its opening episode, “The Good Son,” which wastes little time in sketching out the complicated relationship between Frasier, his brother Niles (David Hyde Pierce), and his blue-collar, retired cop father, Martin (the late, and brilliant, John Mahoney). Things are initially so tense, and so ugly, between Frasier and his dad that a later retcon, meant to spackle over the fact that Frasier told his Cheers barmates that his dad was dead back during that show’s run, makes a surprising amount of sense: Given the friction between the pompous ass and the tough-as-nails detective in the show’s more grounded first season, is it any wonder that Frasier lied about being an orphan? The show would occasionally reduce the Frasier-Martin dynamic to a simpler Odd Couple vibe, but Mahoney, especially, could mine real feeling out of Martin’s bewilderment, and sometimes shame, at the way his son would act.
Niles, meanwhile, was a serendipitous masterstroke, having only been conceived of as a character after the show’s producers saw a headshot of Pierce, and noted his resemblance to Grammer. In building the character, series creators David Angell, Peter Casey, and David Lee created someone who could, essentially, out-Frasier Frasier: more neurotic, more snooty, and frequently more cutting, all in the hands of a performer who could handle anything you cared to throw at him. (It’s no shock that Pierce was nominated for the Emmy for Best Supporting Actor In A Comedy every single year Frasier was on the air, winning three times.) Playing friend, confidante, rival, wounded little brother, and ultimately serving as the show’s actual romantic lead, Pierce could deliver complicated multi-lingual wordplay one moment, and one of TV’s all-time-great physical comedy scenes the next.
Really, though, all of the main Frasier characters share a key trait: an ability to out-maneuver their leading man. Jane Leeves’ housekeeper/physical therapist Daphne could cheerfully blow off her boss’ pompous rage. Peri Gilpin’s Roz, a force of nature and a union woman, got the best of him almost constantly. None of which is to discount Grammer’s own good work, inhabiting this version of Frasier (more snobby and pompous than the one he played on Cheers, but still recognizably the same guy) with total commitment. But all involved seemed to grasp that the joys of Frasier came in taking a man who considered himself the urbane, composed master of the universe, and then slamming him, full-force, into characters with no interest in taking his shit.
High-brow slapstick at its finest
That same approach also applied to the show’s comedy plotting, which was often deliberately throwback in style in its efforts to turn the screws. (We can roll our eyes at many of the tropes of classic bedroom farce, but still look to season five’s “The Ski Lodge” as a near-perfect example of the form, with misunderstandings, swapping rooms, and hornily slammed doors in abundance.) When Frasier was really cooking, few shows could match its knack for ambition, tension, or comedic escalation, with Grammer as a straight man constantly on the verge of going nuts.
We mean that “cooking” bit literally, too: Look no further than second season masterpiece “The Innkeepers” for an obvious example of why Frasier still lands nearly 30 years after its initial airdate. The episode, which sees the Crane boys trying to Big Night it up by running their own restaurant, begins with a steady stream of setbacks, as they lose their chef and waitstaff, press-ganging Niles, Daphne, and Roz into service in their stead. But it’s only when an entire table of food critics (led by Frasier’s workplace nemesis Gil, the delightfully smug Edward Hibbert) arrives that the episode truly unleashes, showcasing a cast-wide talent for slapstick that belies the show’s ostensibly high-brow nature. It’s hard to highlight one moment of the rising chaos as the most laugh-out-loud funny—although it’s probably the bit where Jane Leeves murders an eel—but the sheer energy of the four-minute sequence is infectious, manic, and undeniable. (You can see Grammer just barely keep it together when Gilpin walks back into the kitchen after a disastrous incident with cherries jubilee.) Frasier didn’t go to this particular well too often—pulling out the stops just a few times per season. But anyone who only remembers the show for witty repartee in coffee shops should refresh themselves on all the ways it paid homage to the high-energy, incredibly fast-paced classics, Frasier himself never far from a quick dose of comedic karma.
Psychological strengths
Which isn’t to discount that java-based dialogue, either. As a show with two psychiatrists in its main cast, Frasier was more willing than most sitcoms to get introspective, especially in its early going—and especially in its first few season finales, several of which see Frasier contemplating whether he’s actually happy with his new life in Seattle.
The most memorable of these, probably, is the first: season-one ender “My Coffee With Niles,” which serves as a deliberate bookend to “The Good Son.” (At last: the saga of Niles’ battle with his gardener over a potential Zen garden concludes!) Basically a bottle episode (the outdoor set for the brothers’ regular haunt, Café Nervosa, appears to be new for the installment), it’s an episode-length meditation on the meaning of happiness, bringing all of the show’s main characters into the orbit of its ongoing conversation between Niles and Frasier. It also captures so much of what works about the series’ quieter side, Pierce and Grammer trading barbs and moments of sincerity, Mahoney giving bluster and warmth. The show would return to these themes only periodically across its run, notably with season eight’s “Frasier’s Edge,” which ends with some of Grammer’s best acting in the series, and then its celebrated series finale. This occasional melancholy (which can trace its origins, like Frasier’s, back to Cheers) is just one element of the show’s success. But it’s a key one, giving a counterweight to those moments when it goes completely, joyfully bonkers. (Looking at you, “Theme To The Frasier Crane Show.”)
What does all this mean for 2023's Frasier?
A show like Frasier is a lot to live up to. The original was created by some of the best sitcom writers of a generation, staffed with some of the best sitcom actors of a generation, buried in awards, etc. Judging the new series, strictly on those merits, is likely to be a fool’s errand. But at the very least, this framework does give us an understanding of what “Frasier” actually was, beyond the very basic, kneejerk description of “Kelsey Grammer acts like a prick about couches.” For fans of the old show, at least, the new Frasier can’t help but be judged by how it lives up to those strengths—the heights of intense energy, the deliberate emotional lows, the perfectly composed character dynamics set like wonderful spinning tops around the lead. It’s a road map to the best places this show got to, as it meandered (sometimes with less focus than others) across 11 seasons on the air.
Or, hey: Maybe not. Frasier wasn’t all that much like Cheers, with everybody involved doing their best to break out of a highly successful mold. Reinvention is Frasier Crane’s one true constant. Maybe the new series can pull that trick off, too. It worked once, after all.
194 Comments
We don’t. The network, producers, and star just want us to. They want to exploit any nostalgia audiences might have, but it’s not the 80s and we aren’t the Boomers.
ya beat me to it, damn near word for word…
Truth.
Millennial here. Frasier was awesome.That said, I may or may not watch this.I can tell by your edginess that you’re Gen X. If only I could be so cool as to hate almost everything.
Xennial here.Get bent. There are good reasons that Xers hate everything.
oh this explains all of your cringy-ass posts.
Roasted by simplepoopshoe!And it’s “cringey”, dingus. (See what I did there?)
You should really have grown up by now.
I remember liking but not loving Frasier originally. It was good but it went off the rails after the first 5 or so seasons and I stopped watching but tuned back in for the last few episodes. But I would be down to at least watch a few episodes of this, if it weren’t on yet another streaming service I don’t have.
Yes, yes.
You’ll get there! Don’t worry. Your sarcasm is top knotch!
It’s a throwback to the times when pretty much any sitcom could get ten easy seasons as long as it’s not actively terrible. “Man, they really need to bring back Frasier” is not a sentence I’ve ever heard in the real world but I imagine reboots are a slam dunk as far as Hollywood is concerned because it requires a fraction of the work of a new show.
Very few sitcoms have ten seasons.
hyperbole [hahy-pur-buh-lee]noun Rhetoric.obvious and intentional exaggeration.an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”
Jose’s retrospective on Frasier made me realize we don’t really need Frasier as a main character right now unless he’s dramatically changed his personality. That said, it would be fun to see what they can build around Frasier to justify his existence.
Gen X all grew up on Cheers tho
Are you suggesting Boomers are the only generation susceptible to nostalgia? What a bizarre claim.And people care about the character after all this time because he was a consistently entertaining television fixture for the better part 20 years.
No, I am stating that what worked in the 80s (revived 50s shows that Boomers loved as children) probably doesn’t work as well today. Every generation has been sold nostalgia by film and TV. The returns continue to diminish.
More, revivals are extremely unlikely to be worth the time, much less be as good as the original run.
What 1950’s shows were revived in the 80’s? I can’t think of one.
Just because you can’t think of it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
The New Leave It To Beaver, Twilight Zone, the Dragnet movie, Bret Maverick, the Lone Ranger movie.And that’s to say nothing of the 60s remakes in the 80s, nostalgic movies like Stand By Me, time travel movies like Back To The Future and Peggy Sue Got Married, and the massive ransacking of 50s culture for advertising purposes like the California Raisins.
There’s a qualitative difference between revivals and period pieces though, eh? Both are trading on nostalgia but Back to the Future and Peggy Sue Got Married aren’t creatively bankrupt.
Hence, the qualifier “that’s to say nothing of,” indicating additional information that is expressly not the main point, but it adds to and relates to the point to further illustrate it.
I enjoy both those movies, but they were part of an unprecedented wave of self-soothing nostalgia for the Boomers. And I did not say, nor did I imply, that all of the nostalgia was creatively bankrupt.
Hey, thanks for explaining to me! Extra points for using both “hence” and “nor” in one comment.
We like Frasier by proxy, because Lilith.
Look, it’s either this or come up with something new, and you know that TV execs would rather drag their genitals through a bucket of fire ants than do that.
Don’t knock it till you’ve tried it.
Don’t give them new reality TV ideas.
I’m sure Japan has already got this covered.
Look, the Japanese TV people really need to just get back to doing more cat weightlifting.
We don’t. The characters in Frasier were pretty good. But does anyone really remember that series? Millions watched it, but it doesn’t have staying power. Ally McBeal is an even better example. A top 4 show, but does anyone remember specific episodes? My company is run by old men who wish it was still 1999 when remote work technology was in its infancy. I think a similar argument can be made for the men who run the major networks. The average age of the viewers is over 50. The men who run the networks are much older.“I’m not nostalgic for this, you are.”
This show was ok back in the day, but it got old fast. I certainly wouldn’t sign up for a streaming service for it now.
The idea that there are network executives earning a shitload of money to say things like “people will definitely sign up for Paramount+ when we cancel Star Trek shows and do more Frasier, the kids definitely want more of Kelsey Grammer” boggles my mind.
The cancelled Star Trek series were expensive (and mostly bad) and I don’t think anyone in the streaming wars is targeting “the kids.” Millennials and older with disposable income and a hankering for nostalgia on the other hand…
Disagree on the quality but hard agree on the math. Even with a bunch of stuff being done in post ST shows are pricey.
Because the fact is that, even if Frasier himself is rarely its best part (something that doesn’t bode all that well for a reboot where he’s the only returning main character, by the by), Frasier remains a shockingly good example of the sitcom form.You know, I don’t know if this just stems from people not liking Kelsey Grammer’s politics or the weird hipster tendency that seems to crop up in a lot of fandoms where everyone beats up on the main character or whatever, but I’ve been watching a bit of the old shows recently, and I have to push back on this a little. Yeah, Niles is the MVP of the series overall, but Frasier is nevertheless pretty damn good and deserves a lot more credit than he gets. You don’t become a character who gets continually broadcast for twenty years by being the weakest thing of the shows you’re in.As for ‘why do we like Frasier’, I’m also honestly surprised people keep posing this as a question. Comedy is full of lovably pompous jerks who get their haughtiness pricked.
You don’t become a character who gets continually broadcast for twenty years by being the weakest thing of the shows you’re in.Frasier was easily the best character in the latter half of Cheers’ run too.
This is just the old “Frasier was the Niles of Cheers” saw, which…yes.
If you get the opportunity in life to get Kelsey Grammer to say the words “Everybody Wang Chung tonight”, you damn well take it.
It’s easy to see why he’s lasted this long and why the show is coming back. He’s a funny actor. He’s got a great, commanding voice. He was the perfect casting for Beast in X-Men 3. Plus his cameos on 30 Rock were some of the best that series had. And that’s saying a lot for a show that uses cameos better than pretty much any other series ever has.
They’ll never forget the day they tangled with…the Best Friends Gang!
One rule: Anybody gets hurt during the score…we leave them behind to die.
I always appreciated 30’s fondness for nonsensical jokes with seemingly no punchline or logic that almost no no other sitcom would’ve been able to pull off. And the Jenna/Frasier/ Kenneth Carvel Cake fraud story is one of the best of them – Kelsey Grammer just shows up for no reason whatsoever and he’s having the time of his goddamn life in it.
“He was the perfect casting for Beast in X-Men 3″Was he though? At least not for the Beast I grew up reading, Hank McCoy was, at most, in his mid to late 20’s, and was sort of implied to be a stoner (didn’t get that as a kid of course, but once it was pointed out to me as an adult, I realized his personality in the Avengers did fit that). Don’t get me wrong, for the character they wrote, he did a great job, it just wasn’t the character I remember.
Maybe not that iteration of Beast. But, to me at least, he was the perfect fit for the 90s X-Men Blue/animated series version that I was used to. Genius, physically intimidating yet sometimes too smug for his own good.
Ah, ok, if it was after 1987 or so, then I’m not familiar with it.
Ah someone who only knew X-men from the cartoon – he was 100% perfect as Beast. Was a shame he didn’t get to play him more.
He would know, he’s Fraijer.
Perfect casting for Beast would be an actor capable of conveying genuine emotional and intellectual depth that cuts across his physicality. Kelsey Grammer has no physicality to speak of, and his whole deal is conveying shallow intellectualism with a hint of genuine emotion. He was a horrible choice for the role.
You don’t “have to psh back.” Just say you want to. I have a fondness for Mr. Pierce’s work on the show. The wordless scene when he cuts his finger is perfect physical comedy. The episode that I refer to the most in real life is the one where Frasier fixates on a mail box when the brothers decide to learn how to ride a bike. And I wouldn’t have seen either if I had to pay for a full streaming channel just to see it. Presumably there is a large enough audience who crave the same old, same old, to justify this.
No, I looked at his contract. He has to.
When I tried to push back, they pulled me back in!
I’m not saying you have an obligation to spend $6 on this for a month of Paramount+. But that’s a weird amount of money to be so defiant about.
You don’t “have to psh back.” Just say you want to.That’s easy for you to say. You don’t know how deep this thing goes.
Indeed, we are all Frasier Crane at times, more than we admit.
Had to look into his a politics. Wish I hadn’t.
What a giant piece of shit. Get this clown off the air.
People talk about conservative politics in Hollywood and the key difference between Kelsey Grammer and so many has-beens whining on Fox News is he’s fucing talented. That’s why he gets work and people enjoy seeing him.
Grammer has said that Frasier is influenced by the late, great, loveable and insufferable persona developed by Jack Benny.
I’d be much more interested in a Morgan Bateson spin-off.
It’s bizarre how little he’s actually in that TNG episode. It’s like a minute at most.
Yep. I loved it, too; I had no idea he was going to be in it so it was a Leo-pointing-at-the-TV moment for me.And it was almost a Cheers reunion, but Kirstie Alley wasn’t able to do it.
“Look out, he’s got a nug!”
I can’t bewieve any of my guests could be a…mulpiple murwerwer.
That’s easy for you to say!
I was at the movies.
Would the McCallister Sisters stand back to back? I’m short on bullets.
thank you!
It appears to be… the ice cream truck!
my fave episode.
“Romping with my school chums in the fens and spinneys…”
I’ve got enough cognitive dissonance that i can still watch all the Mission Impossible movies but anything involving Grammer or his cult is a bridge too far for me.
It’s too bad he’s a massive piece of shit.
Holy crap I forgot how good the old Frasier is, especially the restaurant sceneI just can’t see the new show hitting that type of magic, it depends on who they can get to work off of Grammer I suppose.
Between “The Innkeepers” and “Nightmare Inn,” Frasier managed to pull off two of the most perfect sitcom episodes ever made.
Daphne whip-slapping the eel against the table is one of the greatest monents in the history of Western civilization.
I think in that moment we’re all Niles
The whole, say, minute that includes the eel braining and ends with the sprinklers going off is just an absolute masterclass of physical comedy and tight writing. Just brilliant.
It’s going to come down to the supporting cast. Can they gel in the moment, especially the high-energy rapid-fire delivery scenes (the restaurant episode mentioned in the article a great example)? I think most people expected an entire show centered on Frasier was a terrible idea in the first place.
“When people here the name Nile Crane, I want them to think ‘big soufflé’.”
We came for the tossed salads. We stayed for the scrambled eggs.
We came for the tossed salads.Are we not doing phrasing anymore?
I’m doing it.
Said Ripley to the android Bishop…
If the new Saved By the Bell taught us anything its that a sequel series/soft reboot, if done right, can meet and even exceed expectations. And in some ways be better than the original ever was. But then it will also be unceremoniously cancelled after two season.
The inevitable takeaway from reboots is “you’re not going to get ten seasons out of a reboot because do people really want seasons twelve through twenty of Frasier?”
The Conners is about to head into season six, after 10 seasons of Roseanne, so it’s not impossible.
I mean, The Simpsons explained how the character works, when Krusty pointed out that it’s funnier to watch someone with dignity get hit with a pie than it is to watch a flailing clown get hit with a pie.
He’s gonna change the way we think about getting hit by pies!
That is, until you hit them with one too many pies and they become a murderous lunatic bent on revenge.
It also explained that no civilisation in history has considered chief hydrological engineer a calling.
Except for the Cappadocians.
Nope.
What about the Cappadocians?
I agree with everything here, but the character of Frasier is constantly learning from those around him; he is not a basic elitist. He bites off more than he can chew, and can be oblivious to his own snobbery where he mouths off to anyone without thinking, but his appeal is his desire to learn, and analyze himself, from these ordeals. Grammer endows him with enough baggage and sincerity that he rarely falls into false earnestness. And, in the instance he does, it is clear he is too up his own butt to recognize that he’s his own problem, quickly pointed out by his friends. Frasier will agree with them Still, he is a fantastic character. Someone who is so specifically uptight, yet still relatable. Frasier’s circumstances, silliness, dorky appeal, fits of jealousy, and pining for constant betterment bring him his decades-long resilience, even if his end goal is often seeking his peers to pat him on the back and acknowledge his intelligence.
One of the important things about the original was that there was growth and movement in the characters from their one-note initial characterizations; Fraiser and Niles were insufferable elitists who lacked empathy, Dad was boorish, Daphne was wacky and loony…and by the end of the series they’d all matured and the characterizations had deepened. They were all still elitists, or boorish, or wacky, but they’d all found there’s more to life than just that.
From the look of the trailer, it seems like they’re going back to square one with the character and are just making him an insufferable elitist who lacks empathy again. I hope they’re picking up from where they left off and the trailer is just misleading us.
Part of me does worry that Grammer, in his growing latter-day conservatism, sees Frasier as an easy target for some lib parody. And the trailers support that somewhat. But I may be more aware of this than I used to be as I grow more lefty in middle age.
Frasier in all of his iterations seemed to be pretty apolitical, though.
If he’s a liberal, he’s a limousine liberal. All good, until it affects him personally.
Which is how a lot of upper-class/upper-middle class people are in my experience. They can say all the progressive things and support the progressive causes, but if it turns out the city wants to put a homeless shelter in the bankrupt hotel down the block, they’ll be the first to angrily fight it.
I’m so glad they dropped the whole “Daphne is psychic” thing – though that wasn’t so much a sign of growth as a bizzare “Oooh! Won’t this be whacky and quirky!” thing.
Honestly, i would disagree, no one actually cares.
From the look of the trailer, it seems like they’re going back to square one with the character and are just making him an insufferable elitist who lacks empathy again. I hope they’re picking up from where they left off and the trailer is just misleading us.Indeed; the great 11-year plot arc may be seen as Frasier’s analytical journey. Disregarding that and going back to where the character was 30 years ago would require viewers to pretend that Frasier never happened. The show ended so well that it’s actually hard for me to imagine what a sequel might be about.Another risk is that a man in his late 60s just starting in on the stuff he should have figured out in his 30s is more likely to skew pathetic than funny, so it has to start off with an older version of the Frasier from the end, not the beginning.On the practical side: it takes nothing away from Grammer’s performance to observe that the show had absolutely lapidary ensemble work, and starting over with a new supporting cast will be quite a feat. If I’m not mistaken, every member of the core cast appeared in every episode for 11 seasons, come rain or shine or whatever was going on in their personal lives and whatever bug was going around…I guess the offscreen death of his father could be a pretty obvious hook on which to hang the pilot episode. Where they go from there will be a lot of intertwined interesting questions…
Maybe the most moving scene of the whole show for me is where Frasier has spent the whole episode struggling to get across town to accept a hugely prestigious award. And when he finally is about to make it on time by the skin of his teeth, his cab driver starts talking about the serious mental issues he’s been going through, and Frasier decides doing the job he got the award for is more important than the award itself and stays to help the guy talk through his problems.
Yup, that’s one I think of a lot.
I think my favorite scene is when Niles and Frasier take Martin to his favorite steakhouse for his birthday, and immediately start mocking everything about the place as beneath them. Martin’s takedown of his sons is absolutely epic, and something that they obviously internalized. It wasn’t like every episode began with the characters behaving as if the previous ones had never happened. These were characters with depth that built week to week and season to season, always in ways that made logical sense.
The Timber Mill. Yes, that’s one of the best episodes.
Oddly, a lot of serious Frasier fans don’t care for “Frasier Crane Day.”It still kills me in the finale when Martin tearfully says, “Thank you, Frasier,” and hugs him. It’s a callback to one of the very first episodes of the series, when Frasier loses it on Martin for not expressing any gratitude for Frasier taking him in.
I really love how the Frasier/Martin relationship is sketched out in those early episodes. It’s not just that Frasier’s high-class and Martin’s salt-of-the-earth; there’s a real conflict born of the fact that Frasier needs a fresh start after his divorce and being separated from his child, while Martin is experiencing a totally understandable rage over being disabled in the line of duty and neither of his sons caring about him. They’re both wounded and spend their early days of cohabitation lashing out at each other. Which makes their ability to grow closer in the end so satisfying to watch.
Yeah I think that the characters were capable of introspection and maturation was key (sort of an inverse Seinfeld, where deliberately nobody grows or learns anything.) Frasier was always trying to do better and that propelled a lot of episodes.
This exactly. And this is why for as much as I can respect its impact and fandom I cannot fucking stand Seinfeld and have only briefly skimmed through It’s Always Sunny. I really struggle with selfish, idiotic characters who don’t learn anything. (Though FWIW I find Sunny much funnier than Seinfeld, which to my ears was always just an extension of Jerry’s boilerplate boring standup)
Also his self awareness really helped you appreciate the character. When he said, “Yes, but I went to Harvard. When I’m wrong, the world makes a little less sense.” You truly feel a little sorry for him even though that’s such as insanely stuck up thing to say.
Exactly. Well-said my good man.
“That’s right! I said I love her!”
That’s why I find the premise of the new series a bit odd. Frasier coming to terms with his relationship with his Dad was such a big part of the original show that it seems odd to me that he would somehow become estranged from Freddy now.
Haven’t you ever met people with highly-accomplished (or overbearing) parents who become overbearing to their own children because they don’t know of any other way to act?
Exactly–he’s a complex character with a really long extended character arc. Plus, just my take–KG’s own personality came out more in later seasons as he battled with addiction, etc. And the Frasier/Niles brother relationship was really central to it with a surprising amount of pathos for a sitcom. And the main cast just jives so well together. It really is a wonderful show.
The show won 37 Emmys. Probably the most ever for a sitcom. But they are asking why? iCarly got reboot for christ sakes.
The original show is way over-rated. Try watching it today and its slow, barely funny, and the timing is destroyed by the laugh track. Way less watchable than people are remembering.
I think the same can be said for a lot of older shows. Times have changed, and styles are different. My kids are horrified by laugh tracks.
Because it’s “cool” to be anti-laughtrack.The bottom line with laughtacks… In my experience the people I know most opposed to laughtracks are the most easily influenced. It’s projection.I laugh all the time. I laugh when watching things at home by myself. I’ve also wacthed entire episodes of laughtracked shows without so much as as smirk.And an old person gripe… all the Office-style shaky cam stuff is no less artificial. Breaking the fourth wall to basically say “aren’t I being funny and clever right now” is doing the same thing as a laughtrack. Just differently.People will look back at Jim and every character of Abbott Elem in every scene staring at the camera and think… how old and hokey.
Um, no. Laughtracks interrupt the flow of jokes that work, and are awkward as hell for shows that aren’t funny at all (Alf, for example.) People have hated laugh tracks longer than I’ve been alive, and I’m in my 40’s.
There’s a difference between laugh tracks (which people have long hated, like on MASH), and a live studio audience … which often adds to the vibe of the show. For example, watch some old episodes of The Jeffersons and listen to/watch the way the audience reactions interact with the on-stage performances. It’s a different style of acting, a different style of directing.
There are plenty of times in the show where the actors basically have to sit in silence and mark time while they wait for the laughter to die down. I often think of the bit where Niles mentions he and Maris watched a racy movie, after which “we pushed our two beds together”, and has to wait a while before he can complete the joke with “And that’s no mean feat. Her bedroom, as you know, is across the hall.”
I remember that joke, and the delay makes it better. “We pushed our two beds together” is already funny by itself, but it’s also a setup to a second, funnier punchline that the audience doesn’t necessarily see coming.
I’m sure this is subjective, but I’ve never understood the argument that waiting for laughter hurts the timing. Have people never seen a live stand-up or gone to a funny play? Sitting in the aftermath of the joke with the laughter feels good, especially if you’re laughing yourself.But it’s easier to laugh when others are laughing, and I wonder if some of these attitudes are a response to more solitary watching. My family watched The Office every week while I was a teenager and we’d all be laughing out loud, but when I re-watch it I don’t audibly laugh nearly as much.
I don’t remember this bit but I think the long pause could make it funnier?
There’s a version of MASH out there without the laugh track – Channel 7 occasionally used to play it – and man it was surreal and dark.Dark, because they’re surgeons in a field hospital and without the laugh track you’re not reminded of the levity, and surreal because there were big pauses after certain lines with should’ve been part of snappy back-and-forth.
Comedy snobs are almost as insufferable as foodies and beer snobs.So all due respect, STFU.(crowd “woooo!”)
So is stand-up comedy also fake? They wait for laughs too.
There’s also a fair amount of people using that word as an accusation without understanding that for a LOT of those shows the “laugh track” was just a sweetened live audience. So to accuse it of using a “laugh track” all the time is just untrue.
Will they, though? Jack Benny and Jackie Gleason both were known to look at the audience/camera during their sitcoms. It’s tried and true. Shows like The Office just formalized it with a faux-documentary rationale.
You think the OP whining about lauhgtracks would watch Jackie Gleason and think it wasn’t dated af?And yes, people will look back on the faux doc 4th wall stuff from the last 10 ish years as VERY dated.
This was just my misunderstanding of the response. I thought you were complaining about The Office yourself as opposed to pointing out that camera “takes” are just differently formatted laugh track punctuation.
You clearly haven’t met my dorky kids. I could do without laugh tracks for the most part, but some are worse than others. People weren’t that hysterical the 102nd time that Urkel said, “Did I do that?”I’m sure styles will continue to change, and sitcoms may cease to exist before long at the rate we’re going.
Oh, no. No. Laughtracks are fucking vile and always have been.
Defienetly about the Office 4th wall breaks someday.But I didn’t like laugh tracks from a young age and avoided most sitcoms because of how fake they felt and I grew up in the Golden Age of fuckin sitcoms. Fraiser was and is one of the few I enjoy and still do to this day.
I grew up in the 80s and 90s watching shows with laugh tracks. I didn’t like them then, and find them unwatchable now. Its not the fake laughter that bothers me, its the inability to have proper flow and timing because of the fake laughter.
Having watched it today, and the days leading up to today, I have to respectfully disagree. Watched every episode (the same guy who delivers the chair at the start takes it away at the end) and still enjoying it, laughing out loud frequently. And Maris is still the best character.
Nah. Some people are capable of experiencing things not catered them and still enjoy it. Studies back up the idea that being able to understand more, different kinds of humor correlate strongly with intelligence and EQ.You would be horrified to watch The Dick Van Dyke show. And yeah the pacing of that show can be brutal in 2023. But it’s also among the funniest sitcoms ever made, imo.Ever watch the movie The General? You’d hate it for superficial reasons. But it’s at least tied for first for the best action comedy ever made.
Thank you for informing me of what I like and dont like.
You’re welcome!
I think I intended to give you props at the time for the General reference but didn’t. Retrospective props. It’s one of my favorite things to show modern film students. Any Keaton movie, really.Them: How did he do that and not die?Me: Good question. Moving on…
Wrong.
It’s not a laugh track, it’s a live studio audience.
They used a live audience and a laugh track together, just like many other shows at the time.
Nope. Frasier did not sweeten its studio audience, per the producers and crew.
All shows with a live studio audience also used a laugh track, including Frasier.
How do you think they get the laughter for the stuff that isnt filmed in the studio. Or for transitions, or when they have a weird laugher in the audience.
You *would* say that.
I’m working my way through it right now, and it’s constantly gut-busting funny, and more so than much new stuff I check out.
It is one of the only shows with a laugh-track i can enjoy. I’ve almost always been allergic to them.
250 years ago a group of people sitting in a public space would have been thrilled if someone in the room could play some beautiful music on a piano. That was entertainment and it was cherished. The Past: people do things differently there.Water finds its own level.
Hello Seattle, the people who know me best will not be surprised by what I’m about to tell you: I am not a man.
I liked Frasier back in the day, but haven’t watched a rerun in a long time. I saw an ad for the reboot, and it was not funny. Considering that they usually put their best stuff in the ads, I’m not too optimistic.
Frasier has always lived and died by the cast that surrounds him. He was a loveable prig on Cheers, well-situated alongside sitcom actors at the top of their game. And then for the spinoff they were careful to surround him with another stellar cast of likeable actors, perfectly primed to bounce off one another. Hopefully the new Frasier remembers this and somehow finds that magic synergy one last time.
…(led by Frasier’s workplace nemesis Gil, the delightfully smug Edward Hibbert)…Maybe it was different in earlier seasons, but I don’t remember Frasier and Gil’s relationship being particularly antagonistic. They occasionally trade barbs on who is snootier, but the dynamic is typically “Gil says something obliviously gay and Frasier is wryly amused.” Bulldog is far and away Frasier’s true workplace nemesis. Which raises the question: What, exactly, is it about this obnoxious, pretentious, condescending asshole that we all like so much? I’ll preface this by saying I have extremely low hopes for the new spinoff* in large part because he’s the only returning element, but I feel like we’re too hard on Frasier, the character. Obnoxious? Often! Pretentious! Frequently! Condescending? You bet! But…an asshole? I don’t think so. Assholishness implies malice, and Frasier is more the sort who means well but too often gets in his own way, which I find pretty relatable, actually. I also don’t really get the complaint that the character is “rarely the best part” of the show. Sam Malone often isn’t the best part of Cheers! Seinfeld often isn’t the best part of Seinfeld! But they’re still funny characters (or “character,” in Jerry Seinfeld’s case) and their respective shows don’t really make sense without them. Sitcoms are all about ensembles and the characters bouncing off each other—I laugh just as much at Frasier as I do Niles or Martin or Roz. Case in point, Frasier’s rant (delivered brilliantly by Grammer) at the end of “Ski Lodge”:Wait, wait, wait. Let me see if I’ve got this straight. All the lust coursing through this lodge tonight, all the hormones virtually ricocheting off the walls, and no one… was chasing me?[beat]See you at breakfast.Funny! You can always rely on Frasier for a good pissy rant.*And it is a spinoff, not a reboot, damn it! Different setting? 99% different cast? Spinoff!
“Obnoxious? Often! Pretentious! Frequently! Condescending? You bet! But…an asshole? I don’t think so.”Also he knows things about himself. When he’s feeling bad because people at his work think he’s snobby and he asks Niles if Niles thinks he’s elitist, and Niles says, “Of course, I do, you never have to worry about that!” And he replies, “not in the good way.” It’s so funny, it just really worked!
I’m not generally a fan of farces but the Ski Lodge episode was so expertly done, I loved it.
100% agreed. Farce typically irritates me for some reason I’ve never been able to explain, but The Ski Lodge is near perfection.
To me, the problem with farce is that it almost always devolves to the same jokes I’ve seen many times before. When the writers can pull off something genuinely new and surprising, though, it can be wonderful. A good contemporary example: while not every episode lands, the best episodes of The Goes Wrong Show are spectacular.
One of my college professors used that episode as an example of a great farce, and I’ve been hooked on the show ever since. My favorite episode, however, is when Frasier and Niles are taking a class together and basically do all the cutting up in class that they never got to do when they were kids. Talking shit about the teacher in French, it was hilarious.
That’s where they’re taking auto shop at the community College or something right? Classic one.
Yep! I loved it.
James Patrick Stuart, who played gay ski instructor Guy in that episode, had an unenviable job in joining the ensemble at the height of their powers, but he’s more than up to the job. I love the bit where Daphne flirtily asks him “Is there anything you don’t do?” and he responds, “There are a few things.”
It’s not the most farcical, but my favourite is absolutely “The Dinner Party”, and one of the finest bottle episodes ever made. Just Frasier, Niles, Roz, and Daphne. Plus it contains my favourite Niles/Roz shade-throws ever, when Daphne is forced to try to wear one of Roz’s…daring…low-cut, sequinned minidresses:Niles: Daphne, you’re not actually going out in that, are you?Daphne: That’s it! I’m staying home!Roz: No! Just try it! We can…accessorise it!Niles: With what? A lamp post and a public defender?
Ultimately it comes down to the cast. And whether Grammer is still deploying his disorienting acting technique of 1) learning lines at the last minute (on purpose) and 2) never rehearsing to keep reactions fresh.Fraiser proves that likeability is a poor way to measure a protagonist. That said, there was always a push-pull between Fraiser’s snobby obliviousness and humble self-reflection. The real challenge of this show is whether they’ve been too safe in reinventing the model. Fraiser jettisoned everything but the fantastic film look of Cheers (sadly missing in this reboot); but this reboot looks like its trying to play too close to the dynamics of the 90s original. A bolder reinvention might have been better, but I understand wild swings aren’t a big focus of reinventions. There is also something decidedly less cozy about this iteration at first glance (again, the move to HD video vs film may have something to do with that), which could be heightened if they also change up the sound design. (The original run of Fraiser featured big stretches of silence and a signature soundtrack of soothing jazz interstitials).
Likeability is not a “poor way to measure a protagonist”. It is just *a* way to measure one. I’m by no means suggesting that it’s necessary but it’s perfectly valid.
Yeah, it’s all dependent on context. Sometimes you absolutely have to make your character likeable, if only to pull the rug out from under the audience when you reveal them to have a dark side.
I’m not the boss of how people ingest media, but it seems that “interesting” is the sole feature that absolutely must be required of any character. All other facets are secondary or tertiary.
I was momentarily concerned, given the way some articles are written on the site and given the headline, that this was going to be a snarkfest. But thankfully I was wrong and the question was genuine.
This reminds me a little of old school AV Club. Asking an interesting question about pop culture and really delving into the answer.
What, exactly, is it about this obnoxious, pretentious, condescending asshole William that we all dislike so much?
Honestly…
My favorite work of his is his role as Sideshow Bob on the Simpsons. Sideshow Bob and Treehouse of Horror episodes are the only thing I even try watching now.
Sideshow Bob is Frasier with crazy hair and a sidekick role on a kids’ show.
They couldn’t be farther apart. Fraiser went to Harvard, while Sideshow Bob went to Yale! Get your head out of your ass!
Fair point, he does have the boorish manners of a Yalie. Like killing people.
To be fair, he’s never successfully killed anyone.
Pfft. Figures.
“[W]e have one question: Him?”What, is he funny or something?In all seriousness, I think Frasier the character is popular because the balance is right. If you consider yourself a snob (or whatever is the less pejorative version of that word), he’s aspirational: witty, successful, a hit with the ladies, and a decent enough person underneath it all. If you’re more blue-collar, it’s fun to see him taken down a peg frequently and fall victim to his own foolishness. He’s a celebration and a satire of the high-brow in one convenient package.
“We”? You must have a mouse in your pocket or something.
Gosh, all those words and you didn’t even mention the one character that was comedy gold every time she appeared…Lilith.
Tl:dr, but who is this “we” you talk of?
Very few people care about this reboot.
I’d bet real money it wont last beyond 2 seasons due to low viewer numbers
OK, so you don’t give a shit about Frasier Crane.So…don’t watch the show. If enough people share your disinterest, the show won’t last. If enough people are interested in watching the show that it succeeds, you still don’t have to watch it.So, what is your complaint here? That someone is making a show you aren’t interested in?Get over yourself.
When did we decide to merge “reboot,” “revival,” and “sequel” into one word?
Well, we can hope it clears the extremely low bar of hanging around longer than the Murphy Brown revival did.
To really reinvent Frasier, they need to bring in the writers of Money Plane.
The episode where Niles makes a bet on a guy fucking an alligator is wonderfully drole.
Hi.Thanks for sharing this
information this blog was good and this information so useful to us about
basics ways to creating this spinning progress bar thanks for sharing this
great work with us we really appreciate your job.https://www.gologica.com/course/ peoplesoft-admin /”rel=”nofollow”> peoplesoft-admin / online Training
I’m on S6 of a rewatch, and it definitely holds up. Most interesting is how much it borrows from Seinfeld, which was also ascendant at around the same time. Those are my least favorite episodes, as I generally don’t care for Seinfeld, which is probably a far more objectionable Internet Opinion than stanning for Frasier.
Two lines always stood out: “The Crane’s in Maine have your living brain.” and “Don’t cry for me, Arge and Tina”.
But all involved seemed to grasp that the joys of Frasier came in taking a man who considered himself the urbane, composed master of the universe, and then slamming him, full-force, into characters with no interest in taking his shit.They do… and quite a few self-owns, some of them downright magnificent, play into it as well.
I’ll tell you why I care, personally. Because it’s fun to say “Oh, Goody!” and “O what fresh Hell is this?” There’s a use for those two phrases every single day.
People that don’t like Frasier are just a bunch of….
Grammer nazis
(cue laugh track)