Reviews Comments: For a bunch of smart people...
For a bunch of smart people...
... they sure do carry around the Idiot Ball alot. I mean the sheer amount of Plot Induced Stupidity is remarkable. It really irks me that people say this is a witty show. Yes it has references to operas and literature as it guns for the Genius Bonus but beyond those ocassional allusions, there isn't really anything smart about this show. The character's are one dimensional -the snobby Frasier, the brazen Roz, the hen-pecked Niles, the ruff-edged Martin, the... er... "British" Daphne and never even begin to expand beyond that. There is no social commentary or observations on contemporary culture like in [[Seinfield]] or The Office, no lasting character arch's besides Nile's crush on Daphne and each episode sends us straight back to the status quo. And normally I'm fine-dilly-ine with that. If you set your sitcom up as a sitcom and are unashamed of it, I will be behind you a hundred percent. However if your going to sell you show as being the saviour of television from the droves of mediocrity, maybe it shouldn't rely so heavily on eye-roll-inducing farce. Here are the list of recent episodes I've seen. Fraiser and Niles try and cover up the fact they don't have tickets to a play. The situation gets out of hand, hilarityensues. Fraiser and Niles hold a party where an elderly-man dies of a heart attack during a game of murder in the dark. The situation gets out of hand, hilarityensues. Fraiser and Niles hold another party when they find a dead seal on the beach that threaten's to spoil their plans. The situation gets out of hand, hilarityensues. Or it would if the simple explaination of, I dunno, telling the freakin' truth wasn't always lurking in the back of your mind. And it's always the same damn plot! I guess what I'm saying is "References to smart things does not a smart show make" (and yes I know that makes me sound like Yoda).
"However if your going to sell you show as being the saviour of television from the droves of mediocrity, maybe it shouldn't rely so heavily on eye-roll-inducing farce." I thought the show was always aware of its roots as a sidcom spinoff. The show is a departure from Cheers, with its "highbrow" humour which reflects the characters and setting, but I don't think it had any real pretensions. Like many, I think Frasier does deteriorate over time, and the first two seasons are by far the best. Those episodes did not necessarily conform with the farce formula as much as the later ones. The best episode takes place entirely within one local coffee shop, and does nothing but analyse each relationship in the show with casual conversation, throughout. I guess the series could no longer ride on the friction between Frasier and Martin, which often was the subject of earlier episodes ("no social commentary or social observations", my foot: father/son relationships, dealing with disability, bonding difficulties, etc.) My advice is stick to the first two series, which were often the most clever and varied.
comment #1431 maninahat 6th Dec 09 (edited by: maninahat)
Okay, I confess. I've only been watching the re-runs that have recently popped up on TV. I don't think I have seen the first two seasons. Hands up. You've got me. Maybe I'll try and find them, but I can't say I'm too inspired. I just remember David Hyde Pierce giving his Emmy's acceptance speech and commenting on the downward spiral of television and how when it goes back to the good old days where the story was important they should give him a call. After the episode I've seen it seems a little precious. But hey, I differ to your superior knowledge on the subject.
comment #1434 wellinever 6th Dec 09
I can't watch Frasier... I liked the show at first, but then I realized that, not only was Status Quo Frasier's god, but Frasier was never allowed any happiness that wasn't a direct result of making his other family members miserable. It came to be that I only watched the show occasionally, and then only for Eddie. That goddamn dog was so adorable...
comment #1439 Dracomicron 7th Dec 09
What. The. Hell. Its a sitcom, it was always been a sitcom. it was never anything but a sitcom. even with the upper class setting it's sill a sitcom.
comment #2151 joeyjojo 1st Apr 10 (edited by: joeyjojo)
Yes but it always acted like it wasn't. It shouldn't have been ashamed of it's sitcom roots!
comment #2159 wellinever 2nd Apr 10
No it didn't act like it wasn't a sitcom. It never pretended to be something it wasn't. Some people misinterpreted it because of the premise taking place amongst the upperclass, but it was always a bog standard sitcom. It spun off from Cheers for Christ's sake.
comment #2241 Ouroboros 13th Apr 10
Furthermore, the characters had a lot more to them then just one word descriptions. Daphne wasn't just British, she was a Cloud Cuckoolander (although this was played down towards the end of the show's run), for example.
comment #4483 OOZE 18th Sep 10
I never got the impression that it wasn't anything but a sitcom. The cast were making a comedy and knew it and seemed to enjoy it. It did differ from those around the same time and had maybe more heartwarming moments (and YMMV a very good unrequited love/romantic arc). Still, I prefer Frasier reruns to a lot of other sitcoms and dramadies.
comment #8081 idesofmarch 13th Jun 11
I've been watching the show in order, and the "Farce" aspect really becomes prominent about halfway through. Seasons 1 through 4 basically include little of it, but by Season 5, they hit on a few GREAT episodes featuring large amounts of "Digging Yourself Deeper"-type stuff with dogpiling lies, and started copying that format. These were REALLY funny, but this season contains an awful lot of them, and the show would keep adding to it later. So I can see how those would get tiresome. Farce is slightly different from the notorious "Three's Company" plot in that it's generally much smarter than "Oh, I heard the wrong thing through the doorway" stuff, but it can be just as overdone.
comment #27063 Jabroniville 25th Nov 14
In order to post comments, you need to