Frazer never did fieldwork. He sent questionnaires to missionaries and colonial officials, read enormously, and worked from Trinity College, Cambridge, for sixty years. The method, taking a custom out of the society that practised it and setting it beside a similar-looking custom from the other side of the world, was the standard comparative procedure of his generation, and it was abandoned by the next one. Malinowski, who acknowledged that The Golden Bough had drawn him into the subject at all, built a discipline on the opposite principle, that a practice means what it means within one working society. By the 1950s Evans-Pritchard could treat Frazer as a period curiosity.
The influence elsewhere was enormous and outlived the anthropology entirely. The Waste Land acknowledges him in its notes; Yeats, Lawrence, Joyce, Graves and a long line after them worked with his material; ritual theories of the origin of drama came out of him. And the modern Pagan and Wiccan revival took up the dying and reviving god, the sacrificed king and the seasonal cycle as a description of an old religion, at a point when anthropology had already discarded the framework that produced them.
That last part is worth stating carefully. It is a case of a scholarly theory becoming a living tradition after it had stopped being scholarship, and the tradition is not answerable for the defects of the theory.