The Frasier Revival Makes A Sly Reference To A Hilariously Chaotic Classic From The Original Series

The "Frasier" revival series might take place in an entirely different city than its predecessor and feature none of the original cast, but it hasn't forgotten its roots. In the very first episode of the new show, which recently launched on Paramount+, Frasier can be seen poking fun at "Cheers" — the show on which his character first debuted all the way back in 1984. That same episode also pays heartwarming tribute to John Mahoney, who played Frasier's father Martin Crane in the original sitcom that ran from 1993 to 2004. We'll also be seeing Roz actress Peri Gilpin return to the show at some point in the near future.

And that's not the end of the references to Frasier's past. In fact, the revival does an admirable job of linking itself to the previous incarnation despite only Kelsey Grammer returning from the original show. When Frasier first arrives in Boston, he's flanked by his nephew, Davie (Anders Keith), the son of David Hyde Pierce's Niles. The neighborhood bar in the new show is also called Mahoney's in yet another tribute to the late Martin Crane actor. And we'll also be seeing Frasier's ex-wife Lilith (Bebe Neuwirth) show up at some point, having been a regular presence on the original throughout its run.

In other words, the writers are keen to demonstrate that, as showrunners Joe Cristali and Chris Harris told The Hollywood Reporter, this new "Frasier" is no reboot — merely a new chapter, or third act, in the character's life. In episode three, that desire to keep the show connected to its past manifests as references to a classic episode from season 2 of "Frasier," which plays as both a cool Easter egg and a reminder that things are not as they once were. 

David Hyde Pierce may have refused to come back for "Frasier" 2023, but Niles' presence can be felt throughout the new series — and not just because Anders Keith does an uncanny impression of Hyde Pierce's performance. Niles is often referenced in the new show, and in one instance Frasier's son, Freddy (Jack Cutmore-Scott), brings him up while recalling the events of a 1995 episode of "Frasier."

In episode three of the new series, Freddy teases his father for wanting to give up teaching at Harvard after one class. Frasier had previously given his son a hard time from dropping out of that very school and Freddy delights in turning the tables, prompting Frasier to proclaim that he "isn't a quitter." At that point, Freddy asks, "Didn't you and Uncle Niles used to have a restaurant that you quit after like one day?"

That's a reference to season 2 episode 23 of "Frasier" titled "The Innkeepers," in which the lovably pompous protagonist and his brother buy Seattle's oldest restaurant and turn it into an unbearably pretentious French bistro, despite not having any experience as restauranteurs. The episode achieves "I Love Lucy" chocolate factory-level hijinks, goofs, and chaos, with Daphne violently killing eels, cherries jubilee exploding in Roz's face, and the sprinkler system dousing the mayor of Seattle. It's classic "Frasier" fare, mixing highbrow humor with slapstick shenanigans and a dose of good old heart. Sadly, despite its best efforts, that's a new formula the revival show is yet to perfect.

"Frasier" 2023 isn't just concerned with linking the events of the show with its predecessor. Behind the camera, a concerted effort was made to keep things consistent with "Frasier" history. Beyond Kelsey Grammer, who had significant input into the new series, the producers brought back "Cheers" co-creator, renowned producer/director, and all-round sitcom legend James Burrows. Burrows directed not only "The Innkeepers" but dozens of classic "Frasier" episodes, and returned to oversee the first two episodes of the revival series, and in his own words "protect the character [of Frasier] as much as [he] can and make sure he's being taken care of by the writers."

While Burrows is busy protecting the character, Joe Cristali — one of the "co-creators," as they're confusingly referred to, of the revival show — is bringing his wealth of knowledge to the series as a self-professed "Frasier" fanatic. As he told THR:

"Years after ['Fraiser'] ended, I started a Twitter feed called Frasier For Hire, which my joke was I want to get hired on 'Frasier.' I would type up 'Frasier' jokes and puns. And I did it for three years and nobody really cared. It wasn't a very big following — I had like 2,000 followers. It was mostly friends of family. I've seen every episode a million times. I wasn't doing just the Twitter as a parody. I was a fan."

With this kind of oversight, backed up by the protective presence of Kelsey Grammer, you'd expect "Frasier" 2023 to be a pretty faithful revival, even without the original supporting cast. And for the most part, it sort of is. But while the reference to "The Innkeepers" is a nice throwback, and the inclusion of "Frasier" production veterans bodes well, the revival show can't overcome its lack of the original supporting cast.

Unfortunately, episode three, in which the allusion to "The Innkeepers" is made, isn't the best example of the character being "protected." In it, the titular psychiatrist is forced to play up his celebrity status to get his new students' attention. After having hosted a "Dr. Phil"-style talk show in the years between the classic sitcom's finale and the new show's debut, Frasier has become a much bigger celebrity than he was in his native Seattle, and everyone at Harvard, including the head of the psychology department, is a fan.

Sadly, that concept in and of itself lets the character down, showing him as somewhat of a sellout, who throughout 13 seasons of his TV talk show didn't once stop to put an end to the sensationalist antics that made him a national celeb. Episode three is also where the lack of the original supporting cast starts to become more of an issue. A good heart-to-heart between Frasier and his father would have gone a long way to making the episode more palatable, but with John Mahoney's passing making his involvement impossible, the show is left to limp on without him.

Still, it would be a lot worse if there was clearly no effort to link the revival show with the original series, and callbacks to previous episodes at least make for fun Easter eggs. But these callbacks also serve as reminders of what was, which isn't helped by the fact there's a faint whiff of nostalgia bait to the whole thing. There are still plenty more episodes to go, though. Plus, the new show started in quite a sweet way, with its tribute to John Mahoney and its tone that was neither remarkable nor disappointing, so we'll see if it can get back on track.