That's essentially the best way to compare the 80's and 90's lawyer show "Matlock" to its predecessor, the much more famous "Perry Mason" show of the 50's and 60's. Both shows are about a famous lawyer who defends clients on charges of murder and comes up with the real killer, and that's about all the two share in common. "Perry Mason" is all about good plot: within an hour, the viewer's intelligence is challenged time and time again as Mason must find the real killer and turn up the proof as to who really did it. The show ran nine years as did "Matlock", but the manner in which the episodes were written was different as there was never a dull moment. The viewer was kept guessing as to who really committed the crime, and there were so many plot threads and plot twists in each episode you could never really be sure who the culprit was until the end.
Compare the above description to this much more modern series, which centers around lawyer Ben Matlock, played by the known television actor Andy Griffith (in much later years). In "Matlock", there is next to no plot at all. No real story to tell, just the whole 'someone gets killed - Matlock investigates the crime - killer uncovered' routine. And both are an hour long, so why are the plots so skimpy here compared to the much-loved older series? Simple answer: this show is all about character rather than story. That's not to say "Perry Mason" had one-dimensional characters either - Mason was definitely a more serious lawyer, but when the show could spare time, there were plenty of good character moments sprinkled in that gave the leading cast plenty of good chemistry. "Matlock" simply doesn't do much. Seen two episodes so far (sometimes I'll catch this show in the morning and miss Perry for the heck of it) and the content is very basic, no suspense, no big plot twists, just humor and filler scenes. That's it.
On the other hand, just because it doesn't live up to the ingeniousness of "Perry Mason" doesn't mean it has no merits at all. Next to no story yes, but at least the character of Ben Matlock remains fairly lovable. Not the brilliant, headstrong Perry, but a genuinely more original character with a humorous side and that old-man air about him. This is probably the most I can say about characters in the show, as I haven't seen enough of Michelle Thomas and Conrad McMasters to really judge how three-dimensional they are (although what I've seen is certainly nothing special). The house-keeper is also quite comical and provides a few nice laughs.
So, to wrap it up, one really has to decide what they're looking for. Do you want an intelligent, masterfully written, and outstandingly acted whodunit (Mason) or a comical and purely entertaining show with only the faintest of plots to support character development (Matlock)? If I had to pick one, I'd probably say the former because that show has its share of share of both, even while the plot does outweigh the character. There is a time and a place for this one to be sure, and it does remain decent to watch overall, but because it is not nearly as well-written and shows a lack of respect for the audiences' intelligence, it is generally not as good as its predecessor.
Compare the above description to this much more modern series, which centers around lawyer Ben Matlock, played by the known television actor Andy Griffith (in much later years). In "Matlock", there is next to no plot at all. No real story to tell, just the whole 'someone gets killed - Matlock investigates the crime - killer uncovered' routine. And both are an hour long, so why are the plots so skimpy here compared to the much-loved older series? Simple answer: this show is all about character rather than story. That's not to say "Perry Mason" had one-dimensional characters either - Mason was definitely a more serious lawyer, but when the show could spare time, there were plenty of good character moments sprinkled in that gave the leading cast plenty of good chemistry. "Matlock" simply doesn't do much. Seen two episodes so far (sometimes I'll catch this show in the morning and miss Perry for the heck of it) and the content is very basic, no suspense, no big plot twists, just humor and filler scenes. That's it.
On the other hand, just because it doesn't live up to the ingeniousness of "Perry Mason" doesn't mean it has no merits at all. Next to no story yes, but at least the character of Ben Matlock remains fairly lovable. Not the brilliant, headstrong Perry, but a genuinely more original character with a humorous side and that old-man air about him. This is probably the most I can say about characters in the show, as I haven't seen enough of Michelle Thomas and Conrad McMasters to really judge how three-dimensional they are (although what I've seen is certainly nothing special). The house-keeper is also quite comical and provides a few nice laughs.
So, to wrap it up, one really has to decide what they're looking for. Do you want an intelligent, masterfully written, and outstandingly acted whodunit (Mason) or a comical and purely entertaining show with only the faintest of plots to support character development (Matlock)? If I had to pick one, I'd probably say the former because that show has its share of share of both, even while the plot does outweigh the character. There is a time and a place for this one to be sure, and it does remain decent to watch overall, but because it is not nearly as well-written and shows a lack of respect for the audiences' intelligence, it is generally not as good as its predecessor.