Ted,
you make a very good point. Though I will have to say that in general I would prefer early Columbo over later Columbo, there are some very worthy episodes in the later run, too, and I certainly do not think it was a mistake to bring him back.
I was particularly intrigued, however, by your comment about how the development in his character may reflect a real development in a person such as Columbo. He is, by nature, humble and somewhat absent-minded, and this leads to him being underestimated by his opponents. As this 'keeps working for him', might he not - deliberately or not - come to exaggerate these traits over time?
A similar case in point may be Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot - yes, he really is conceited and prissy, but he also plays upon this to create a "comic foreigner" persona.
And in both cases the interesting question is maybe: how much of his behaviour is an act?

I think the main issue with the post 70's Columbo's is that the TV shows were consistently dumbed down for the modern audience. If you look at shows from the 70's they had more sophistication and subtleties than the latter ones did. I think it's a result of the average audience member being less literate than they used to be. People read less than they used to; at least in terms of narrative fiction, and are, as a result, less able to follow the complexities of a story than they used to be. This isn't just true of Columbo, but of cartoons (compare the old Warner Brothers Bugs Bunny and the old Fleischer Popeye's with junk like Smurfs, Sponge Bob etc.) and other shows in general. Our society has devolved in terms of sophistication and so our entertainment has been dumbed down as well.

The newer episodes HAD to be done, if not we would all be helplessly lamenting "if only there were more episodes". Good or bad at least we have them.

In the 70's Columbo would identify, intimidate and agitate the murderer into almost giving himself up. That's what was so much fun about watching the first Columbos. All of them had this edgy element of Columbo agitating the murderer with every new clue. Think of Columbo and Dale Kingston, Paul Hanlon, Dr. Mayfield, Mark Halpern, etc. the fun is in watching the murderer unravel as Columbo picks up clues and taunts them with their own guilt.

In the new ones it feels like Columbo is just going through the motions using experience and the friendly old man personality. But this is how it had to be, Peter Faulk had to be natural and that's how the character came to him.

"Murder can Be Hazardous" was scripted exactly like any typical 70s episode. But Peter Faulk and Columbo are 20yrs older and this is how it came out. I don't think Peter wanted to try and act 20 years younger I think he just had to play his role in the way it came natural to him and that's what we got.

And by the way, in comparing two George Hamilton episodes, I like "Hazardous" much better than "Deadly State Of Mind" . The 90s beats the 70s with this one.

My question would be, though, can a 'friendly old man' truly be able to manipulate murderers into confessing? or at the very least seem articulate enough to carry the investigation to them, as a way of searching for answers?
The comments surrounding the Columbo character changing over time is perhaps relevant to every day people in their daily lives, because that is undoubtedly part of life, but for a cop, with a more vital role of bringing these murderers to justice, i think a more hardened streak and an assertive manner are highly important. Often with the 'newer' Columbo's i get the feeling that the actors playing the parts of the murderers are actually downplaying their roles slightly, as to not overwhelm Peter Falk's performance. Back in the seventies actors like Jack Cassidy and Richard Kiley were so intensely assertive, Columbo had to be their equal, as in a sense of being able to hold his own. Falk was very much in his element within the effectiveness of his delivery from seasons 1-6, where there was always an strongly assertive streak, underlying his character, even when, for example, those subtle hints of comedy were at their most prevalent. Whatever was going down, it wasn't uncommon for Columbo to show that ruthless steely determination, and moments when perhaps he was prepared to fly off the handle.

Season seven was great in terms of storylines, clues, and special guest stars, but i could no longer quite take to Peter Falk's portrayal of Columbo in the same way. Perhaps the caricature of Columbo truly started here.

New Columbo didn't try to badger the murder into confession anymore he just used his experience to gather enough evidence to make an arrest, it was all routine. He didn't torment the suspect anymore he just gathered evidence and followed clues.

In the seventies he kept in mind that this person he was dealing with actually killed someone and used the high ground to pursue them until justice was served. So much fun to watch.

As for the actors, I think they were following Peter's lead and bouncing off of his acting. Peter set the tone of the show and I think the actors followed that tone. George Hamilton is a good example of this, he just responded naturally to a friendly old man smiling while making accusations. Had the old Columbo questioned him his reactions would have been different.

I definitely think Peter could have played the old Columbo in the new episodes and I really wish he would have at least tried. One thing that bother's me the most about the new episodes is his tribute to WC Fields, he makes many comments with that WC Fields accent and I really don't like it.

In a word ... YES.

The Columbo I recognize ended with "Last Salute to the Commodore" which was not only an ironic cap, it was easily the worst installment of the original series ever produced.

As far as I'm concerned, anything made after that rates as nothing more than commercial overkill.

Of course, a few episodes in the 6th and 7th seasons had some merit, but not nearly enough to warrant a purchase of the DVD's.