NBC’s Best Sitcom of All Time Deserves a Revival 44 Years Later

There’s an undeniable truth in Hollywood: Success breeds emulation. Innovative TV shows and movies that find an audience only stay that way for so long before the wannabes start coming in droves. Some find success, like Seinfeld-inspired shows Curb Your Enthusiasm and It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, while others fail spectacularly, like Friends wannabe Coupling from 2003. Then there’s Cheers, the iconic sitcom that debuted in 1982. Despite its immense popularity, no one has come close to even trying to copy the series since the bar closed down on May 20, 1993, after a stellar 11-season run. Even spin-off Frasier knew well enough that it couldn’t just have Frasier (Kelsey Grammer) show up at a Seattle bar on a weekly basis. Really, the only series that can live up to the iconic Cheers is Cheers itself, and now, 44 years later, a revival of the iconic sitcom could prove it.

Cheers famously came close to being cancelled after its first season, ranking achingly close to dead last in the ratings. It avoided cancellation because, as Cheers writer Ken Levine opined, “They had nothing better to replace it with” (not entirely accurate: Cheers had then-president of the NBC entertainment division Brandon Tartikoff‘s full support as well). But what makes Cheers such an iconic series are the very things that almost got it cancelled in the first place.

Viewers weren’t used to comedies that relied on smart, clever dialogue. In fact, that same year, Police Squad! was cancelled after only six episodes aired because ABC network executive Anthony Thomopoulos claimed that the audience had to “pay too much attention” to understand the jokes, which TV Guide assessed as the “most stupid reason a network ever gave for ending a series.” In other words, viewers were fed sitcoms laden with pratfalls and fast-paced jokes because they weren’t “smart enough” to understand anything else. The single-location setup, too, was unfamiliar, as were the dynamics being set up between the characters.

But it didn’t take long before Cheers started to catch on with viewers, and in doing so, provided a master class in what makes a sitcom work. The single-setting allowed for familiarity, truly a place “where everybody knows your name,” unlike other series where the audience has to consistently reconcile the characters in different environments. The pacing meant waiting for the punchline, and the writing made that wait worthwhile. The dynamic between Ted Danson‘s Sam and Shelley Long‘s Diane was more than simply a “will they/won’t they,” but rooted in a legendary, and just as unconventional, real-life relationship.

A ‘Cheers’ Revival Has to Make This Element Work

But the strongest asset that made Cheers the go-to series of its era was its ensemble cast. There was literally someone on the series that was relatable to those watching, whether it was the sophisticated air of Frasier Crane, the know-it-all mail carrier Cliff Clavin (John Ratzenberger), the deeply cynical, prickly Carla (Rhea Perlman), or Norm (George Wendt), the bar mainstay and lovable everyman. The dynamics between them were just as important to the success of the show as the key relationship between Sam and Diane. And when characters left the series, they weren’t simply replaced with similar characters, but characters who mixed up the dynamics: the naive, sweet Coach (Nicholas Colasanto), who mentored Sam, was replaced by Woody (Woody Harrelson), a younger, more energetic (but equally naive) bartender that prompted Sam to become the mentor; while Kirstie Alley‘s Rebecca changed the dynamic Sam had with Diane, a friendship as opposed to a romance.

That intricate, balanced web of personalities and relationships doesn’t come easy, a lesson Coupling learned by assuming any collection of 20 to 30-year-olds could have the same chemistry as Friends. For any revival of Cheers to have success, finding that balance is its first priority. Furthermore, you can’t just find a “new Norm” and a “new Cliff.” That balance has to come with a new set of characters, each with their own foibles that aren’t limited to what came before. While it may not come easily, it can be done. Frasier is a perfect example, creating new dynamics with new characters without resorting to recreating characters from the original series. And Frasier itself only succeeded because those new characters came equipped with excellent writing that fleshed them out completely.

The question is this: why bother, and why now? Because in today’s chaotic world, people crave familiarity and a place they belong, perhaps more than ever before. A new series that’s like Cheers won’t work, or else it would have by now. A full reboot takes away that familiarity that was so critical to Cheers‘ success, like a childhood home being taken over by people you don’t know. A revival, on the other hand, implies a connection to the original series: not bound to it, but something that honors it. It could be that Sam has a son or daughter who has taken over the bar, or, if Danson’s up for it, Sam himself is still behind the counter, tending to a new group of relatable barflies who have found a place where everybody knows their names, too.