Original v Spin-Off

[moodymick]

This comes down to a conversation i was having with the old fella (Father - not Penis) on Sunday. We were discussing the end of Lewis and whether or not there will be a further spin-off (we both think it would work btw)? Anyway we got to talking about Morse and in general, which one we enjoyed most?

This got me thinking on the drive back to work, have any 'spin-offs' or continuances been better than the 'original'? Movies or TV series - thoughts?

Oh and by the way, we thought Lewis had some better stories and benefit of more cash - but you couldn't discount the John Thaw factor. Honours even.

 

[UKRob]

Frazier was better than Cheers I thought.

 

[Stacy555]

Frazier was better than Cheers I thought.

I think Frazier has aged better, but actually better not sure I can agree.
But I'm a little biased as I did name my son after Sam "Mayday" Malone.

 

[MrK1]

Frazier was better than Cheers I thought.

+1.

 

[PhilD]

Was George & Mildred better than Man About The House? Tough call

 

[nick_s]

Joey = Awful
Friends = Not much better

The Cleveland Show = Missing something
Family Guy = Brilliant

I suppose what I'm getting at is that I take everything on merit.

 

[Darkbulb]

I thought Torchwood was a great Dr Who spinoff.
(And yes, letters in "Torchwood" does of course spell "Doctor Who")

 

[moodymick]

The Cleveland Show = Missing something
Family Guy = Brilliant

I tend to agree on that one. Cleveland Show is a thin idea, spread really, really thin.

The one I can't make up my mind about is Star Trek. Is the 'Original Series' with all it's camp overacting, 'shoot or shag' policy and regurgitated storylines better than 'Next Generation', with it's slightly better campy acting, better stories, but slightly annoying PC preachiness?