People on fandomsecrets are saying Ashes to Ashes is a better show than Life on Mars.
... I don't get that AT ALL. Even if you like it more? It is, in no objective way, a better made show. The beginning was dire, both Ash and Matt admitted that the tone was off in S1, the way it was shot up until S3 was awful, the plot holes were many and gigantic, the level of quipping and emotional resonance were lacking in comparison to LoM.
Should I always read "so and so is a better show" as "so and so is a better show for my tastes"? Probably. I just... there are lots of things I adore but I can always objectively say, "oh yeah, this is technically more adept in comparison, but I loooooove [x], [y] & [z] of that more."