Great observations, especially the part about the creators forseeing how people would watch the show in the long run.

I think what makes Columbo different is that the creators had a rare vision about what their show was, and was not. It was NOT primarily about realism, or about logic, or about law enforcement practices, obviously. It's about interesting characters, and interesting settings, and as you said, great acting. One thing about the acting, it seems that the guest stars are just really into it. They get what Columbo is about.

And about those characters and settings, I called them "interesting" not "realistic" which they weren't. A good example is "Any old port..." There was a lot of stuff about the wine business in that episode and I doubt that any of it had any resemblance to the real wine business. But it wasn't supposed to. Columbo is in some ways a cartoon. It's like Spiderman, one week he's up against the Goblin and then the next week it's Rhino. BUT, it's in settings that look familiar to us.

This is not a knock against the show. What's a realistic detective show, maybe NYPD Blue? OK, in a bunch of different ways someone might judge that show to be superior to Columbo, but I have zero interest in NYPD Blue, and I can't get enough of Columbo, even decades later.

I think you were right when you talked about them knowing about the flaws. I think they did, and they correctly judged that fixing those flaws would have detracted from what Columbo was really about.

I agree; very good points. In regards to the focus on high caliber acting, I think it's quite fitting that Columbo's inaugural case involved him being pitted against a psychiatrist, since the majority of the series, as you've all pointed out, was carried by the high caliber performances; in a sense, richly drawn character studies and psychological profiles.
I only first started watching the series in about 1993 on the A&E network, and for a time, perhaps conditioned by the show's billing as a mystery series, I had actually felt that much of the plotting itself was brilliant. Over time though, I've come to see it in the way that you are talking about, a series chiefly driven by engaging character performances more than anything else.

I don't agree with the statements that the writing was flawed. The creators of the show described it as an intellectual fantasy, a tribute to the classic drawing room-style murder mysteries. That means you are going to have convoluted plots with contrivances and coincidences that would never happen in real life, as with ALL mysteries. If you want to be technical, the whole concept of the show is "flawed" then.

As far as other cop shows go like NYPD Blue, the only thing realistic about them is maybe the amount of blood shown on the screen. Those shows are also full of holes, and characters do and say things that would never be done in real life. I think that is more annoying because they think they are being real when they are not, which is more of an insult to the audience. The Columbo writers have no such pretense, and are just trying to amuse us with a fun little game. After all these years, I still think the Columbo plots are the most creative and brilliant mystery plots ever done on television or any other medium.

These are very excellent points from all participants.
I have often wondered what draws me to great amounts of REPEAT viewings of this wonderful show.
I have watched Columbo more than any other show ever...often viewing nightly as comfort food before bed...despite knowing every single word of dialogue sometimes...in fact I have requested that should I die ...my family is to have one of my favorite meals...then watch something George Carlin and a Columbo...lol
There are plot holes to be sure and many murderers pull some very "dumb" moves....but Falk's performance and the cat and mouse dynamic are stellar...despite occasionally slipping into self-parody at times.
Let's face it...the structure of the show is almost always the same....so to be able to make it fresh and enjoyable given that is amazing.
I mean we know he will fumble to find his notepad...find a pencil...scratch his head...turn back in the doorway upon exit with another question...yet we watch.
Like another person mentioned,,,I have ZERO interest in NYPD blue...and find CSIs or Criminal Minds type shows waaay too slick and contrived...I can't watch them...I always say the C in CSI stands for Coincidence.

One only has to measure Columbo against the other Murder Mystery Wheel shows...I mean would you watch McLoud ,Macmillan, Banacek or Hec Ramsey etc..over and over again? I highly doubt.

Falk's portrayal and charm are almost in a league of their own for TV characters...and no matter who ever revives it possibly...it'll never be matched...

I was saddened when I first heard of his Alzheimer's Disease...knowing that great mind was being attacked.,,and was actually shaken when he died.

Luckily I have an autographed photo of him....that the rest of my family laughs at...lol

RIP Mr Falk...you are missed

Well said Marc!!!

I can't believe the attitude expressed in some of those earlier posts. It seems like some of you have watched Columbo so much that while you still enjoy it you seem to have forgotten the concept. Did Columbo contain flaws and plot holes? Yes, probably, TV shows tend to do that especially if they run for awhile. But they need to be discussed and dissected on a case by case basis in order to see while really are plot holes and while are just failures to observe details (the latter would still be a flaw of sorts).

Are the characters stupid? Perhaps, the stupidity of Columbo's fellow people officers was always a danger as the show continued to run because it was necessary for the to be spectacularly outshone by our favourite dishevelled detective. It's better in episodes when they don't appear because then they can just back up Columbo against a sea of adversity. What about other characters? Well sometimes certainly but they usually need to be discussed on a case by case basis like the flaws a plot holes. However there is one other sort of character that does need to be looked at here: the murderer.

So are the murderers stupid? Well, yes, obviously; that's the point. Murderers in Columbo are privileged, conceited people who commit a heinous act and then think they done something really smart and so can't but get away with it. They haven't, they've actually done something rather stupid and Columbo comes along and it's his job to prove that. Remember that whenever the two parties are in the same scene together, however it might appear to all involved, Columbo is always the smart one.

So, yes, the`stupidity` is written in as someone said above. But that isn't to say the murderers are inherently stupid, they're not. Generally they are quite smart, Columbo has been known to commit on this. It's just Columbo has to be smarter. And he's the one who gets them to do this. By pestering and badgering and intimating and all the things he does that set them on edge until they feel they have to do whatever Columbo wants they to do. That and some element of their character compels them to do what they're better judgement tells them that they should not do. But they have to do it, Columbo gets them to do it.

This is why, as was also mentioned, Prescription: Murder pitted Columbo against Ray Fleming, a psychiatrist. The story was written as a stage play with no original plans for developing the character they way he was. Ray Fleming was written as a genuine nemesis to Columbo. He was able to see what Columbo was doing and explain it to him and did constantly. It explained Columbo's behaviour to a possibly perplexed audience and let the man himself no he was onto him. He could see what Columbo was doing and was thus felt immune to direct manipulation. This in turn irritated Columbo and forced him to employ the tactic he did. Most of the murders don't have Ray Fleming's insight but he was still stupid and made many more mistakes than Joan Hudson and the fun of the show is to try and spot these, to identify the clues that are pointing Columbo towards his man (or woman) because he won't always tell us. It's easy to say it's not very good as a mystery as someone did but then Columbo was never a mystery in the conventional sense but it's kind of a show all of its own. But although you usually know who done it you are still required to follow the clues as best you can even when no confirmation is forthcoming.

So, finally, what about those "unbelievable element" mentioned above? How realistic is Columbo? Well, given that it's fiction, not very. Fiction tends to operate to a convention which, for the sake of this post will be called `refined realism`. The point is that you should never put into a story less than you get out of it. In Columbo an awful lot of clues are derived from detritus detail. Columbo looks onto things that are either out of place or seem artificially neat. But, of course, artificial is the point. In reality Columbo couldn't move for detritus details that are exactly that and have no bearing on anything, life is full of such things. Fiction generally isn't because it takes the audience to far away from the plot. Wasted detail in a story is one of the highest crimes a writer can commit. And Columbo and certain other shows wilfully feed of this fact in an incredibly genius way. So, as another commentator pointed out the criminals are always wealthy and Columbo has countless hours to focus on the crime. This is true but it is also part of the format and, to be honest one of the more realistic parts. For a start Columbo is a homicide detective so his presence is explained so much better than many of his contemporaries. Also murders are quite uncommon and taken very seriously when they occur. It's not really implausible that when one occurs Columbo will be allowed to take as much time as he once provided he can show his working, despite what we see I think we can assume he can.

The wealth and social standing of the murderer is the cherry on the very well made cake. This is best exemplified in Etude In Black when Columbo comes to the home of Alex Benedict and basically spends the whole scene asking him how must it costs and doing calculations to prove he could never afford it. An unsurprising conclusion and he even looks like he could never afford it and that's the point. Week in, week out (so to speak) Columbo's investigation has him move in social circles that seem far above his station. And yet week in, week out he prove himself to be in many ways the better person to many of those he meets there.

This is a Columbo forum, it looks like the only major one on the web. What is the point of coming here and knocking the show when it is really so well considered and incredibly well made?

No one questioned how well the show was made moron. You need to find yourself some sort of a life before you end up killing your family or committing suicide.

Bert, the person who wrote the first post said that the writers and producers "really blew it" which, in my interpretation, is saying that the show was not well-made. And what is the point of posting here or even coming to this website if you don't like the show?

Criticizing a murder mystery because its portrayal of detective work is unrealistic is like criticizing "Jack and the Beanstalk" because of its unrealistic portrayal of gardening.