I also like seeing Monk, Fridays on the USA network, I do see the similarities between Columbo and Monk. When I first viewed the series about three years ago, I mentioned to myself this is Columbo but with phobias. He has phobias but he is very keen in solving cases. I saw one long time ago that starred the blonde guy in Weekend at Bernies. The played a professor who kills his student becuase she was going to reveal their affair using a block clock. He puts her on the clock. She hangs there until 12pm when she falls on someones car given him an alibi becuase he was in class with the students. That seemed very interesting and cool to plan a murder like that.

Let me add the only difference between Columbo and Monk is that wwe know and see whose wife Monk is.

Which criminologist suffers more setbacks in his cases? Not having seen most Monk episodes, I cannot provide the answer to that question.

Columbo usually gets closer and closer until he finally nails his suspect are rarely suffers a setback in the process. Monk must be flawless to be able to top Columbo.

Interesting to see such broad agreement about the similarities between Monk and Columbo. I floated this awhile back and only a few people agreed, anyway I'll put this aside....

Monk could also be more 'fleshed out' because the series follows a more typical series format - by that I mean Monk has 20 odd episodes in a series compared to Columbo's 6. Monk fans spend a lot more time with Monk.

I would also argue that comparing the two is a little spurious as they are fundamentally different. Columbo is obviously designed to be a 'lone wolf', he has no regular side-kick, unlike Monk, which would enable his character to be developed. For me the 'mystery' of Columbo as a person only adds to my enjoyment.

www.20six.co.uk/jiltedbarfly

It's interesting to hear people's different takes on Columbo, ie. is less more? By not revealing too much have the writers and Falk added to Columbo's persona? Or has this reluctance to divulge much in the way of "concrete" background information,left him a little bit of a stereotype, a bit of a cardboard cutout that seemed to be so popular back in the days of 70's tv.?
I don't think so.

I think Ted makes a good point when he says that the ongoing mystery in Columbo, is Columbo himself.

His character is a mystery because he himself is a bit of an enigma. It's one of his tools, it puts his adversaries on the wrong foot, keeps them on the hop. His reluctance to share any info on his wife, his children, house, well that is a realistic attitude for a man who deals with murderers on a daily basis.
He stays in charge of his emotions because he is a professional, and as he mentions in "Columbo goes to College", there's no point in going and blabbing about things till you're ready.

I understand and agree with what's mostly been said, but what it all comes down to (to me) is personality.

Which character do we feel more drawn to - and this is a fundamental point regardless of scripts, plots and actors.

I enjoy Monk, but I can't feel as drawn to his character as I do Columbo's. I took to Columbo's character straight from the beginning and welcomed him with open arms whereas Monk's character I feel I hold at arm's length.

Columbo's early scripts are fantastic whereas Monk's are just very good - IMO.

Also, good old Columbo didn't have a sidekick - unless you count his beloved dog ;)