The "Frasier" Revival Gives Me A Tossed Salad & Scrambled Eggs of Emotions

 (Mild spoilers for the premiere of the Frasier reboot. If you've made it this far and that concerns you.)

I don't think it's a hot take when I say one of the most successful television series of all time was Cheers, and one of the most successful spinoffs of all time was its own spinoff, Frasier. 

I grew up loving both series, and I don't mean like somehow I've lied to you all and Im secretly twenty years older than I really am. No, I just did like any normal high-school male did, and binged the hell out of the reruns that were syndicated across various networks. I collected the Cheers DVD boxsets and received a few as gifts (I'm really dating myself here...) and made regular pilgrimages to the original pub and its sister location in Boston, which the series based its primary setting off of.

I really grew to love the world of Cheers and its characters, and that love spilled over into Frasier. At times I might say I enjoy the latter more than the former. Alas, like any beloved piece of media from the past, the money hungry powers of Hollywood finally came for it, and like Full House, Will & Grace, and Night Court before it,  Frasier became the next series to get revived.

A continuation of Frasier had been discussed for many years, particularly by its star Kelsey Grammer. Many like myself suspected those talks were going to cease when John Mahoney, who played Frasier's father Martin Crane, passed away in 2018. That was not the case however, obviously, or we wouldn't be here right now. But not only would Mahoney be absent, but none of the main cast was going to return either. 

(Full disclosure, I do not have Paramount Plus, and I was only able to watch the series premiere via the streaming service's Youtube.)

Seven into this ten-episode season, and so far Bebe Neuwirth has made one guest appearance as Frasier's ex-wife Lilith, and it has been announced that Peri Gilpin will make an appearance as Roz, but there's very little hope for an appearance of David Hyde Pierece's Niles, or Jane Leeves's Daphne. So the mainncast is 99% new faces, and then Grammer. Which on the surface level doesn't make this look any different than other (failed) attempts to repeat the sitcom success of his career (Harsh, but true).

But what's the premise of this new Frasier? Well set twenty years after the finale, Frasier (Grammer) has returned to Boston to check in on his now-grown son Freddy (Jack Cutmore-Scott). Martin (Mahoney) has passed prior to the start of the series, and Freddy missed the funeral. Now here's where I start feeling conflicted. I'm never quite sure where to side in this issue. If an actor dies, should their character die too? On one hand, Mahoney is Martin Crane. You could not recast him. You could make him a character that is mentioned but never seen, like Niles's ex-wife Maris, or Norm's wife Vera on Cheers. But then his prolonged absence starts to become a problem, which is probably at least partially why this series was set in Boston and not Seattle. In the end, I support the decision to kill off Martin Crane, but at the same time this is all feels very unnecessary, and if this series didn't exist, they wouldn't have to write him off in the first place. I digress.

Anyway, Martin's death is the catalyst for the pilot. Frasier wants to check-in on Freddy, but Freddy wants very little to do with his father. They're estranged because...we need conflict? I'm not saying Frasier was the best father in the world. Hell the whole spinoff happened because he moved halfway across the country from his son, but even in that spinoff Frasier always did his best to be a good father.

This is a cardinal sin of any sequel or follow-up, and that is to undo or undermine the good work and storytelling of its predecessor. See Mark Whalberg and Mila Kunis's characters getting a divorce in Ted 2. See Ralph Breaks The Internet opening with the 'Sugar Rush' video game getting shut down. See Frasier 2.0 opening with Frasier being estranged from his son...and also his relationship with Laura Linney's Charlotte also destroyed, which sucks, but Frasier having bad luck in love, I guess that's par for the course BUT HE WAS SO CLOS-alright...

Why are father and son estranged? Well turns out Freddy dropped out of Harvard to become a firefighter, much to Frasier's dismay...and for me, this is where it gets interesting. Father and son struggling to find a common ground due to their different vocations and views on life. Frasier's relationship with his son now mirrors his own with his father (Martin was a policeman, Frasier a psychiatrist). I really appreciate this parallel, and this definitely could make for a compelling premise. Unfortunately, it will never see its full potential because we don't have John Mahoney or Martin Crane in the story. That said this all comes to a boil in a very touching scene in tribute to the lost patriarch, and as someone who recently lost his father, it managed to strike a chord.

I won't give you a complete play-by-play of the first episode of Frasier 2.0, but it ends with Frasier taking a job in Boston to stay closer to Freddy. Which is nice, but opens up an even bigger can of worms. Again, it all goes back to Cheers. Frasier is going to live in Boston again, and we are just supposed to accept that he will never resist his old watering hole? He will never run into Woody Harrelson's Woody (Heh), George Wendt's Norm Peterson, or National Treasure Ted Danson's Sam Malone?? I know we shouldn't expect (or maybe we should...) them to sneak a backdoor pilot to a Cheers revival into this. (That would be trippy, Cheers leads to Frasier, and Frasier leads to Cheers), rebuild the old soundstage and throw buckets of money at all the sitcom alumni but...why tease us like this?? 

There is a line where Frasier says "[He] probably wasn't the best version of himself in Boston" which could make for an interesting storyline. I mean, he's not totally wrong. He had two failed marriages, hung out in a bar a lot, and almost threw himself off a building. Will the creatives behind the series tap into this? Who's to say?

In the end, I want to hate the Frasier revival, but I can't. There's a lot of promise in its premise. There are times I genuinely laughed out loud in the premiere. Kelsey Grammer is still great as this character, and the supporting cast definitely have their moments. Although most of them seem to just be trying to fill the void of the original cast. Nicholas Lyndhurst's Alan is filling the Niles role. Jess Salguerio's Eve has similarities to Roz. Anders Keith's David Crane, Frasier's nephew/Niles and Daphne's son...is somehow trying to fill the void of both his mother and father and failing? 

This all feels totally unnecessary, but in the Hollywood of 2023, I suppose it was inevitable. There is potential in this revival of Frasier, but since I don't have Paramount Plus, I personally might not be able to see it. If you have, should I add yet another streaming service to my library so I can watch Frasier? What else is good on Paramount Plus?

Anyway, as the doctor would say, thanks for listening.

Film Review Throwback- "The Perfect Host"

The Perfect Host
Directed by Nick Tomnay
Starring David Hyde Pierce and Clayne Crawford

God bless Netflix. Really. If it weren't for Netflix I'd never be able to see a lot of independent films that only make their way through festivals and limited releases. I mean I can't afford to go to Sundance every year. So I'm thankful the likes of Netflix, Redbox, illegal online streaming….provides me the opportunity to see films like this one.

The Perfect Host came out way back in 2010, and when I saw the trailer I was intrigued. It looked to be offering, essentially, Niles Crane from Frasier going pure evil. Six years later I've finally seen the film, and it delivers just that, and more...

The film opens on criminal John Taylor (Crawford), on the run for a robbery he recently pulled with his girlfriend (Megahn Perry). Injured and desperate for refuge, he cons his way into the home of Warwick Wilson (Pierce), who is in the midst of planning a dinner party. It isn't long before the jig is up for John and he's trying to hold Warwick hostage. The tables quickly turn, when its revealed Warwick has drugged the wine John's been drinking all night. John learns Warwick is not what he seems, and soon he's the hostage for one of the most bizzare dinner parties ever witnessed.

There's much more going on in this film that I can't tell you without going into spoilers, but it is one nutty film. A lot of twists and turns come out of nowhere, some that are probably not properly hinted at or set up, but who cares this is a twisted black comedy if I've ever seen one. You'll be face palming and chuckling to yourself at how far gone this thing goes, and in a good way, because it's a fun ride.

Now a lot of the film's success falls onto the two leads, but where one gives a great performance, the other gives a pretty bland one. I'm sure it's a no brainer to you which one is which. Yes, this is David Hyde Pierce's film 150%. He gives such a gripping, wild, colorful performance he owns every second on screen. This is not Niles Crane. This is Niles Crane meets Stewie Griffin meets Raymond Reddington. Sadly on the other side of things, Clayne Crawford can't measure up. He gives such a bland, one-dimensional performance, and the character comes off so unlikable you don't care what happens to him.

Maybe that's the idea though…maybe the filmmakers cast an unknown amateur in the role to make him seem every more unlikable David Hyde Pierce in his role. I mean it's Pierce not Crawford on all the posters and stuff. Whoa…

Anyway, The Perfect Host is an insane, fun little film. It is dark, and might not be for everyone. You might watch it once and never watch it again, or it might be a frequent rewatch depending on your taste. I enjoy a black comedy from time to time, and I loved Frasier, so this was definitely one I was glad to finally see. Thanks Netflix.