I'm glad Angel got a shout out here. I preferred it to Buffy. Well apart from the last season and a bit, but Buffy was poor by then too. It was more grown up but still fun. Loved Angel, Cordy and Wes having the time and attention to grow.

Frasier is one of my favourite sit-coms of all time. It did fall off for a while there... but don't most shows?

I wouldn't agree that Angel was better than Buffy, but I don't like to compare them because they were both so different. Angel's second and third seasons were very, very good, as good as Buffy's second and third, but Angel's fourth season was the worst out of both of the series IMO. And Private Practice may be better than Grey's now, but when comparing one and two to PP's one and two Grey's kicks PP's ass.

Not to be dismissive, but ya'll are nuts for claiming Angel and Deep Space Nine were better than Buffy and Star Trek: TNG - those two shows were among the worst to ever hit the airwaves. Deep Space Nine was terrible! And Angel had it's moments, but completely jumped the shark with the addition of that karaoke singing alien (himself a DS9 castoff) etc. etc. Buffy S5 and 6 were among the best of the show - giving us The Body, Dark Willow, and tons of Anya. Ya'll is on crack.

You are kidding with this right?

Aside from Xena and Simpsons the rest of the list is absolutely ridiculous.

Angel? Daria? DS9? Really? Wow...

I love Torchwood but its not Doctor Who.

Okay most of this list I can say "well I see their point" to, but Torchwood? Really? Against all the decades of Doctor Who? Dear lord no!

I'm on board with Daria, Frasier & SVU.
But there is no way you can be serious about PP. That show is just the worst. The absolute worst. A terrible waste of Kate Walsh and Addison.

@jen Daria will finally be released on DVD (no word on Blu-Ray) in 2010.

Ah ha. Torchwood is better than Doctor Who? Seriously? Its two-and-a-half unevenly written series is better than all of Doctor Who's nearly fifty-years' worth of stories? All right, you have fun with that.

(Look, I actually do enjoy Torchwood a great deal. But it's not good. Going dark and gory just because you're allowed to doesn't make for good storytelling.)

And Grey's might be crap now but Grey's at its height, however ridiculous, was a million times better than PP could ever hope to be.

There's The Jeffersons, which is dated as all get out, but was both popular and important in the mid 70s.

Also, the Honeymooners, one of the greatest sitcoms of all time, which stands in relation to The Jackie Gleason Show as does the Simpsons to Tracey Ullman.

I agree with Daria (I love that show so much), but Torchwood being better than Doctor Who!!! I just don't get. Doctor Who has evolved from the campy kids show to a emotionally mature series. Not saying that it wasn't before but the recent seasons have some of the darkest episodes in the series.

And I also love Buffy but I do agree that Angel was better (besides season 4), but what is up with the Buffy season 5 hate? Some of the best episodes in the series was in that season including my fav, "The Body".

Thanks for putting that mind blowingly ugly picture of Tracey Ullman in my head!!

Does Space Ghost Coast to Coast count?

Torchwood, really? It's fun enough, but such rubbish really.

What about the Jeffersons?

Also, King of the Hill was much better then Daria although since Hank's name changed from Mr. Anderson in Beavis and Butthead I guess technically it's not a spinoff.

Having only seen seasons 1, parts of 2, and 5 of Angel, I don't know how qualified I am to say this, but from what I saw Angel was just continuation of Angel moping, which was ok when he was part of an ensemble, but as the main character, boring. So Buffy, wayyyy better. And while I love Torchwood and Captain Jack and Ianto Jones, I think its ridiculous to compare it to the 40 year history of Doctor Who, besides Torchwood is probably done for good, whereas we know that Doctor Who will be continuing beyond David Tennant's run.

Didn't NCIS spin off from JAG? NCIS Should get a shout out here

I'll certainly give Angel season two the win over Buffy season five but Angel lost all the claim it might have had to being a better show with season four. I'm a huge Whedon fan but I haven't seen season four since it originally aired and refuse to buy it on DVD it was so unbelievably bad. Say what you will about some of the weaker season of Buffy but it never descended to that level and always managed to have a few brilliant episodes even in a weaker season.

While I love DS9, I think TNG was by far the best Star Trek to have aired, and although I enjoy Torchwood and it's had some great episodes, Doctor Who remains the superior show. Sometimes Torchwood takes itself too seriously and tries too hard to be darker, edgier, and sexier than the original and instead it just ends up being comic. Don't even get me started on Children of Earth and Davies' lazy writing. Who has its flaws and can be inconsistent, but it also has episodes like Blink, The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances, and Family of Blood/Human Nature.

This list is ridiculous. DS9 over TNG? Angel over Buffy? Torchwood over Doctor Who? Private Practice over Grey's Anatomy? TNG ran circles around all the other Star Trek incarnations, Private Practice is boring as hell and should not be on tv (while Grey's Anatomy is at the bottom of a downward spiral, seasons 1 and 2 were fantastic television).

WHAT!!!!!! I'll agree with angel (up until season 3) whcih overtook Buffy (which fizzled by season 3/4) but FRASIER - it seemed every episode involved a misunderstanding/mixup/switcheroo and the slapstick ensued - TOTAL CRAP - season 1 of cheers is one of the best written/acted comedies of all time. Want proof - watch "endless slumper" from season 1 - funny and touching at the same time without getting sappy - at that moment the show became an instant classic

Whenever I see any of these TWoP lists I know they are only going to be for the last fifteen years, as otherwise there would also be listed Maude.

Such a shame that LAW & ORDER: CRIMINAL INTENT is In effect) coming to its end with the recent mass firings of the actors, especially Vincent D'Onofrio who, as Detective Robert Goren, was the lifeblood of this spinoff.

I liked DS9 quite a bit, but still think TNG was better. It may not have been darker, but it had more heart.

As for Law & Order, SVU may be a better show now, but it can't touch the original's first decade or so. And Criminal intent is nowhere near in the league of the original.

As for 90210 vs. Melrose...I can't pick one. At their best (90210 from the second summer season to the second year of college, and MP from the time Amanda shows up to half way through season 4), they are both great, addictive guilty pleasures in their own way.

Thanks for the DS9 props - hands down the best of all the Star Trek series. I challenge people who disagree to put the worst of TNG against the worst of DS9 - TNG is much, much worse (Shades of Grey, anyone?).
DS9 had real character development, amazing recurring characters, and a beginning to end story arc. Also one of the best series finales I've ever seen (as opposed to "All Good Things..." which I have purged from my memory). When TNG was great, it was really great, but it was far more uneven than DS9, which was consistently good week to week.

The fact that this entry congratulates itself on knowing that the Simpsons spun off from the Tracey Ullman (unlike those "younger", presumably more naive viewers)and then doesn't include "The Honeymooners" illustrates the weaknesses and limitations of this site more cruelly than anything I could say.

DS9 was my favourite Star Trek series, so it's good to see it getting its props. (Sorry, but most of the first two seasons of TNG are virtally unwatchable.)

I see Frasier as being roughly on par with Cheers, myself. (Same with Private Practice and Gray's Anatomy, but that's mainly 'cause they're both dreck.)

The best of Angel against the worst of Buffy? Okay, that I'll give you. (Though Buffy wins hands down in the long run.)

I cry fowl on Torchwood and SVU, though. Dr. Who and L&O: Original Recipe both win hands down.

I'm with you on the rest of the list, though.

(And everyone who's shouting out "Jeffersons" and "Maude" are forgetting that they're both spun off from one of the greatest sitcoms of all time. They're both great shows, but All In the Family was BETTER.)

I really enjoy Sons of Anarchy, the new spin-off of Married with Children. I am happy that Peg and Al got a divorce so she could let down her hair with a biker.

I don't know if Angel was a better show than Buffy, but I enjoyed it more. And I loved Season 4 despite the Connor/Cordy ickiness.

I definitely agree with DS9 of TNG. Not so sure about Torchwood over Dr. Who though. The rest I either don't know about or care about.

Cheers was definitely better than the repetitive Frasier - constant episode after episode involving misunderstandings/poorly written slapstick. Granted Cheers fell into a kind of rut towards the end - but in the beginning nearly every episode was funny/interesting like "endless slumper" where sam was tempted to start drinking again after losing his lucky bottlecap or the one where diane tells sam how she almost killed herself as a child but stopped when she became worried about who would feed her cat - funny and sad at the same time. Frasier never came close to beating that.

As for SVU - it is incredibly awful -I saw the Hilary Duff episode and laughed at how bad/preachy it was - I thought I was watching an episode of MASH, I do like Criminal Intent now that it has Jeff Goldblum - he is incredibly hypnotic to watch, and the best part - NO LAWYERS!!!!

ITA on DS9, its the most awesome of all the Star Treks for me. The other's had great episodes, but all in all, DS9 was the best. I haven't really watched any of the rest of the list except Doctor Who, but never saw Torchwood, so I have no idea which was better.

It's interesting to me how much personal taste is reflected in the comments here, and that's what really makes a show "better" to each person.
Personally i preferred Angel during those seasons to Buffy as Buffy was getting predictable (false big bad-real big bad-etc) and Dawn was stupid beyond belief, i won't even get into the crap fest that was it's last season that started good with promise. Angel was best when he was dense and silly, but that also had a stupid ending.
Fraiser tops Cheers as i still watch it, while Cheers grates on me for me some reason. Granted Fraiser had some clunkers and a bad season or two.
DS9 rules to me as it was the first trek show where things changed and had meaning. Every other show in that universe just had no consequence. Pretty rare for a show back then, with only Babylon 5 doing it too.

A lifetime ago there was an hour retrospective of Star Trek: The Next Generation airing on syndicated stations during the lead up to the final episode of the successful series. In that retrospective Rick Berman discussed how the characters of TNG had changed over seven years. For example he said, and this is the truth, that Riker grew a beard! I’m not joking. This was just one of the superficial examples of growth and change that took place for the show’s characters.

That alone puts Deep Space Nine over TNG because while the growth of almost all the TNG characters (during the course of the TV show) can be explained in a sentence or two, one needs at least a couple of paragraphs to describe how the DS9 characters evolved over their seven season run. Sisko, Kira, Odo, Bashir, etc. were not nearly the same people they were at the end of their adventures as they were at the beginning.

But its more than that. I love TNG. It’s the perfect comfort food show and its much more accessible than DS9 ever was. Its great TV. But its nowhere close to being as, uh, well, “deep” as Deep Space Nine. DS9 is the only Trek series after the original that even bothered to bring a fresh approach to storytelling for Trek. It was the first Trek to really take use of its entire ensemble of actors and characters. The first Trek to rely heavily on continuity and to tell its stories in long arcs over the period of years. It was the one Trek series that really flirted with telling darker stories and taking the Federation down darker paths. Some of the subjects that were frequently touched upon during DS9's 7 seasons were terrorism, nation building, religious fundamentalism, the stripping away of citizens' rights, escalating and long lasting wars/conflicts, and the issue of whether people in power are justified in committing atrocities in order to defeat an enemy. DS9 ended ten years ago and yet those subjects are now more prevalent in American society than they were during the show's run. That indicates the show was ahead of its time.

The one nagging point is that Babylon 5, not constrained by the rules of Star Trek morality, handled some of these themes more impressively (that show definitely gave more time to its continuing story arcs).

For TNG fans who are surprised anyone would suggest DS9 is better realize that the folks who wrote this blog aren’t alone. The genre magazines in the USA and UK have been making that point for over a decade. But since DS9 was never a hit the mainstream magazines such as Entertainment Weekly have all but ignored the show and would never put it above the popular TNG. The one exception is TV Guide which wrote, once DS9 ended, that Deep Space Nine was the best written and best acted Star Trek show in history.

"Darker" and "character arcs" doesn't necessarily mean "better". While the lows of TNG were probably lower than those of DS9, I'd still say overall, TNG was a better show than DS9. And the final ep of TNG rocked, it was def one of the best endings of any show, not just the Trek shows.

I'm a little clueless here. What Criminal Minds spin-off?

"Grey's Anatomy is better, was better and will be better than Private Practice was, is or will ever hope to be."
Thank you for pointing that out!!! Grey's might have been going through some tough times, but is still so much better than PP. They might have Kate Walsh and Taye Diggs, but the stories are just not as good as on GA.

Honestly, I love that someone had the guts to say it: Angel WAS better than Buffy. I loved BtVS and always will, but it went downhill after season 3 (and 6 and 7 ranged from gorgeous to execrable and began the show's series of shoddy retcons and plot points--Willow's total character assassination, Dawn, Buffy working fast food (!), Spike turning into Lestat, and the awful, awful Potentials and First Evil (worst.villain.ever).

Angel meanwhile was smart, witty, challenging, and beautifully written and produced, and actually got richer as the show went on. I'm stunned at reactions to Season 4, which remains to me one of the most daring and interesting plotlines I've ever seen on a show. And Lorne was a fantastic character! Witty, gentle, perceptive, and ultimately tragic (sniffle, RIP Andy Hallett).

I think Doctor Who is brilliant, and is recognized as such, but the inclusion of Torchwood is smart because as flawed as it is, it's a lot of fun, and gets people talking.

On DS9, again, count me in that it was ultimately far richer than TNG. I loved both but DS9, like Angel, ended its run by wrapping up with a beautiful and mythologically rich story arc, while TNG just sort of... ended.

As a final argument on the Angel vs. Buffy comparisons -- I cannot remember the last line of Buffy, just a clump of Potentials and Buffy deciding to go to the Mall or something after watching the total destruction of their town and watching several friends die. But Angel's last line? I'll never forget it: "Me, I kind of want to slay the dragon. Let's go to work."

Angel was about the good fight to the end, no compromises, no easy outs. I still miss that damn show.

Buffy was good until they went off to College, like most every other show that falls to the same fate. The fact that Angel left (who provided much of the interest to begin with) and they seemed to buy into their hype. They started to refer to themselves as the scooby gang, Riley was lame, Spike was overused and became annoying, Dawn was a drain, an Willow was a traain wreck as a character. It suffered from too many characters. What made the early seasons great was the dynamic btw the three friends/Giles/Angel and a dash of Cordelia - miss Calendar was good too. It should have ended with graduation of high school -a villain loses credibility when they keeping saying, "No, now this demon is the MOST powerful and we must beat him - from the Master to Spike to the Mayor, there can be only one truly powerful, after that it becomes anticlimactic.

Angel was great in the beginning with Doyle and was good for 2 more seasons after that, but once Connor reared his head, Gunn was lame - his ghetto/macho rang hollow -sounded like a kid from the suburbs watchign BET (token minority) and Cordelia of all people started to factor in more the show became unwatchable and felt like it suffered from the same "scooby gang" mentality that was very WB.

Both shows started off well with wit and sometimes subtle jabs of humor and great storytelling but in the end its like they became hyper-aware of its wit and tried to hard to cram jokes/humor in every nook and cranny. But at its peak I will say that Angel season 1 and Buffy season 1 are the best of both series and Angel season 1 just slightly better - to this day I have yet to see a better series opener - I loved it how Doyle fou an excuse to Drink -sorry to see him go.

Angel's Connor

I do feel that you just listed spin offs, not really better ones. The City better than the Hills (why don't you cover the City then instead of the Hills)? Private Practice better than Grey's? Why not just boldly say that Joey was better than Friends?

Never seen Angel, Buffy, 90210, The Hills, The City, Torchwood, Dr. Who, or Xena, but of the pairs in which I've seen both, I pretty much agree, especially with DS9. It was on a whole other level than Next Generation, which was good, but not particularly special.

First, think Buffy beats Angel, although I really did love the first two seasons. Hated when they turned baby Connor into Vincent (of Mad Men), and it was creepily reminiscent of child abuse when he became involved with Cordelia. Charisma Carpenter apparently hated the storyline and argued with the writers, to no avail. (Think this was David Fury's doing?) Unfortunately Joss was busy with Firefly and the writing really suffered. I did like Gunn and Adore Adore Spike on Buffy AND Angel, but think the plots weren't worthy of them. And stop cutting up Lorne! I LOVED me my Lorne (another R.I.P. ANDY Hallett).
ST:NG wins hands down over Space Station 9, despite the first two seasons of it being outstanding and probably better than NG first two. Thought Quark was one of the most original characters I've ever seen on TV and still fond of the "Laws of Acquisition." But individual episodes don't stand out for me the way they do on NG, and I stopped watching when the Dominion took over most of the story arcs. Ended up disliking Kira, when she was originally one of the highlights for me. NG on the other hand, had two standouts - when Beverly is the only one left while the ship and crew disappear, and my all time fave - when Picard is naked and tortured by the Cardassian. I hold that episode up to people that don't take science fiction seriously. It completely caught the essence of torture and should have been required viewing for senior military advisors during Bush's reign.
ALso have strong feelings about Torchwood - love all the characters, and even when it's cheesy it's so well done I like it anyway. Great humour and sexy leads. Like the even-handed treatment of bisexuality and how Jack is the embodiment of Tom Cruise if he ever came out of the closet and grew a few inches! Not to mention guest appearance of James Marsters (Spike) as John Hart. Have to admit Buffy and Spike kissing has far more chemistry than Jack and John though. Dr. Who I feel is more of a guilty pleasure. What is their yearly budget, five bucks?? Those aliens look like they could been borrowed from the set of an Ed Wood movie. The only Dr. Who I like is Christopher Eccleston and Billie Piper as Rose. Without them, no reason to watch unless I'm trying to avoid hockey on tv. Really despise that Donna, God, she is sooo annoying.
Grey's Anatomy was great the first season, lost interest after that. Couldn't stand to try watching PP, looked incredibly boring and too focused on pretty pretty doctors.

Cheers was top-of-the-line for its time, clearly, but I think Frasier is a much better show in retrospect. More clever writing, more likeable characters, and (for me, anyway) much deeper laughs. I rarely found Cheers to be laugh-at-loud funny, and a lot of the characters were grating, whereas I genuinely like every significant character on Frasier.

Torchwood is *not* better than Doctor Who. Torchwood is full of completely unsympathetic characters and makes its audience want to commit suicide. It's dreck.

Cheers is far and away the better show, Frasier was overrated crap - once Kelsey Grammer had the audacity to think his show was better than Seinfeld....Cheers had more memorable and down to Earth characters than Fasier like Sam, Coach, Woody, Cliff, Woody, Norm, Diane, Rebecca vs Niles (who was really the only funny character). Frasier was a lame attempt to mock high society types but if you want that just watch Keeping Up Appearances"

Lets be honest here if you took Buffy seasons 4-7 (the seasons without Angel) and compared them to Angel seasons 1-4, its not even a contest, Angel completely destroys it. Angel had better characters and better storylines. Angel far surpasses Buffy.

DS9 represent!!

Just repeating the fact that NCIS was a spin-off of JAG. "Ice Queen" and "Meltdown" were Jag episodes that focused on the NCIS team, just like NCIS had a two-part episode focused on the NCIS:LA team.

I've got to agree with DS9, the best, but seemingly the least appreciated of the Trek Series. And as much as I loved Daria, I think King of the Hill is the more worthy offspring of B&B (yeah, not a true spin-off, but still...)

Angel > Buffy? WTF?

First off, David Boreanaz is a bad actor period. Angel was never an interesting hero, Angelus was a crap villain. That they constantly had Angel walking in front of uncovered windows during the DAYTIME and the brushed if off with "it's indirect" was b.s.

Cordelia? Made a better supporting character on Buffy then she did a main character on Angel. Especially once they tried to hook her up with Angel. Carpenter and Boreanaz had no chemistry.

Wesley. My God, what a weird character. He was fine at first but when they turned him into a stalker and a hypocrite it was insane. Suddenly, he was “dark”. Fred was just absolutely annoying. “Oh! I’m just a motor-mouthed genius, who’s rail-thin but eats more than a football team! Tee-hee!” She grated quite heavily on my nerves. Acker had no chemistry with the actor that played Wesley. PERIOD.

Gunn? Was an embarrassment to the show and proof of how little exposure Whedon and his crew have to people who aren’t white. “Yo, homey, me and this vamp are tight. Don’t be disrespectin’ him.” The dialogue, the stereotypes, the portrayal of his “street gang”…they were cringe-inducing.

(Ever notice how on Whedon’s shows the casts are always 99% white? Four shows now- FOUR! – and I can count the number of non-white main/key supporting castmembers on one hand.)

The main “villain” was lame: a law firm. Har har. Get it? ‘Cause lawyers are evil? (That show’s use of irony was so heavy-handed.) The rest of the villains weren’t much better.

The Connor: the whiniest character of all time. He actually made Dawn tolerable by comparison. Forget the creepy mom-sex, the man bangs, the weirdly red lips, the lack of acting chops on display: this guy was worse than DAWN.

Then you have the second biggest retcon in television history. One notch below It Was All A Dream. Cordy never came back, it was a demon-goddess, the whole thing had been set up, GOTCHA! Whatever. What was the point with the final season? Did anyone actually believe for a second that Wolfram and Hart had changed it’s ways? “Hi, we represent all Evil. But we’ve decided to let you, our arch-nemesis, run our agency and change it from the inside. What? Does that sound crazy to you? All evil corporations and entities totally willingly hand themselves over to the white hats! Absolutely this is not a trap.” Or a plot contrivance thought up by a mostly uncreative and arrogant group of writers who, for all their respective wit, have run each and every one of their shows into the ground.

Please. Buffy was an amazing idea. Angel was not. Sarah Michelle Gellar, while not Cate Blanchett, pulled off some pretty awesome things; Boreanaz was cardboard. Giles beats Wesley with a pinky finger. Faith. Kendra. The teenager-hating principal. Drusilla. Spike. Oz. Pretty much every single episode from seasons 1, 2, and 3. Many if not most episodes from seasons 4 and 5. Buffy at it’s worst was Angel at it’s best.

Also: SVU over the original Law and Order? Do you guys smoke crack? Or ever actually watch TV?

To be fair, Sam, all shows virtually have that same racial demographic, not just Whedon's shows. I give Whedon at least credit for trying to incorporate his minority characters into the major overall storylines and not killing them at the drop of a hat (see: Lost, Heroes).

Getting back to the Trek wars...

Someone wrote that Sisko was one-note compared to Picard. Are you serious? I’ll give Patrick Stewart credit for being the greatest actor ever of Trek and I did like how Picard was so different than Kirk. But Picard is practically one dimensional compared to Sisko. He is a captain of a ship first, second and last. He really has no other roles, no other titles and no other responsibilities (except for remembering to feed his fish). Oh and outside of loosening up to play cards with his crew in the final episode he never grew as a character.

Sisko on the other hand was a rarity amongst Trek captains/commanders. He was a family man. You see DS9 was the one Trek which recognized that commanding officers do get married (they have a life outside of duty) in the real world and therefore incorporated it within the Trek universe. Sisko was introduced as a widower and a single parent. He had to raise someone other than his fish. In the end he even ::gasp:: remarried...just as people do in real life all the time. That was refreshing.

This was a man with a lot on his plate. He had to command a station that eventually would become the most strategic location in the galaxy, he had to try to bring Bajor into the Federation, he had to command personnel who were not (and never became) Starfleet officers, he had to negotiate both with Bajoran politicians and religious leaders and find the right balance when doing so, he had to deal with the Marquis conflict in DMZ, the ever present threat of the Cardassians and growing aggression of the Klingons; and he had to keep an eye on the neighbors in the Gamma Quadrant, the Dominion, who had designs on taking over the Alpha Quadrant. And since he and his station were always in the same location these issues didn’t just go away at the end of an episode with the crew flying off to the next planet. No, these were concerns that were long lasting in that region of space.

Sisko was a commander who wanted no part of his assignment on Deep Space Nine. He ended up becoming a captain who came around to seeing Deep Space Nine and Bajor as his true home. He was a by-the-book military man who later allowed the environment he was in to alter his political views as well as lead him down some “Heart of Darkness” like moments/decisions. He was an outsider to the Bajorans. He respected their beliefs but didn’t agree with them. Ultimately though he went native. Not only did he become embraced by the Bajorans he often began to see things more from their point of view than the Federation’s point of view. He was also reluctant religious figure who ended up wholly accepting his role as the Emissary to the Bajoran people. Now some Trek purists may not like that TPTB of DS9 would have a Starfleet officer go down these roads but regardless the decision to do so took more guts than all Trek of the past 25 years. It also represented change and growth of Sisko's character and such growth could be found amongst almost al of the DS9 regulars. If you don’t like Sisko or the guy who played him that's one thing. But its misleading to suggest the character was one-note. What Trek captain had more to deal with during a run of a series?

Last of all I'll take the second season of DS9 over any season of TNG other than seasons 3 and 4. The second season of DS9 was when the show really started showing its promise and potential and its a shame that folks (even some DS9 fans) dismiss it.

DANA, I was thinking same thing - NCIS spun off from JAG .. and has been doing great. Granted, they basically just used JAG to introduce new characters for a separate show (vs taking character from JAG to create a secondary show). But they did precisely same thing to spin off NCIS: LA. And, also when they used Beverly Hills, 90210 in order to "spin off" Melrose Place.