I certainly wouldn't say this show is "bad", and I can see where some of the appeal lies, but it kind of underwhelmed me. I watched a few episodes, and thought it seemed kind of fun, but it just didn't do enough for me for me to persist.The thing about the show is that the concept seems so fun. Sherlock Holmes' extremely well-preserved-in-honey corpse is reanimated 200 years later and he resumes being a detective, this time with a female Inspector Lestrade and a robotic Watson by his side. The thing is...it just feels like the show doesn't really "have fun" with its goofy premise. It seems to take itself way too seriously - not that it's dark or anything, just that it plays everything very straight, almost like it's acting like there's nothing weird about the situation when there obviously is. And this just doesn't work for me. It's a show with a ludicrous and yet very charming premise, but it's very unwilling to "let loose" and really have fun with it. I'm not saying this show has to be completely jokey or silly or anything, but at least have the characters react the tiniest bit realistically to the extremely odd fact that a 200-year-old detective is alive again.Another big problem is Sherlock Holmes himself. He's from 200 years ago, and yet all he has to do is listen to a few teaching CD things to "get him up to speed", and then he's COMPLETELY comfortable in the 22nd century and capable of solving crimes involving technology he couldn't have even dreamed up before. I'm sorry, but just...no. People will accept absolutely absurd things if it leads to a more interesting story, but in this case it makes things LESS interesting. Imagine - the great super-amazing detective Sherlock Holmes has been brought back to deal with crime, but is disabled by being a "fish out of water" and can't really help until he relearns everything he'd ever known. Talk about character development! And wouldn't it be interesting if, despite being taken down a MAJOR peg, Sherlock still manages to use his amazing observational and deductive skills to "save the day"? But now, instead of being the veritable god of detective work, he's someone who has to put in a lot of effort and often rely on help from his friends to succeed. Wouldn't that be extremely interesting? But no, this show doesn't do that, and as a result it feels like HUGE wasted potential. Basically, this show is asking you to believe something ridiculous, but it's not so you can have a more interesting story, it's so you can have an exponentially LESS interesting story. While this show DOES have merits and can certainly be entertaining, it's hard for me to overlook what it COULD'VE been if it could have just followed up all the way on its premise. I understand that may have been "beyond the scope" of what the show was trying to be (basically a sci-fi adaption of Sherlock Holmes stories for kids), but if they had wanted to do that, why not just make Sherlock be BORN in the 22nd century? Having him be from the past adds almost nothing in this show aside from a huge feeling of wasted potential.Basically, it's not a bad show, but they shouldn't have created such an interesting premise if they weren't going to follow up on it all the way. It's good enough, but it's SO far from being as good as it could be that I just can't get into it. Just my two cents tho'. Check it out if you think it sounds interesting.(By the way, the traditional animation in this show is fine, but the badly incorporated CGI for buildings, cars, etc. is really cheesy and bad.)

For the sake of completeness of my Holmes project, I watched a couple episodes of this. The fancy is that Holmes is placed 200 years in his future. The future setting allows the animators to use all sorts of visual shorthand for sets and situations. The appropriation of Holmes allows the writers existing stories that can be reduced to skeletal plots. These two devices were likely important to the decision to go, as they would greatly reduce costs.This was inspired by Sherlock Holmes in the 23rd Century (of the decade before), an even cheaper production with even more abstract notions of a future.When characters and story structures reach this level of reuse, like Frankenstein, it is because they have such power that all one has to do is reference them by sketching, and the viewer fills in details.The amazing thing is the ends of the thing. The production itself is the scantiest, cheapest thing possible and the external reference is one of the richest.

Wonderful animated "steampunk" that mixes late 19th century literature with futuristic fantasy. Like the SciFi Network's live-action THE SECRET ADVENTURES OF JULES VERNE, this isn't about the original novels so much about the spirit and adventure of the characters. When authors like Arthur Conan Doyle, Jules Verne, Edgar Rice Burroughs, and H.G. Wells, etc...penned their classics, it was a time when the world was opening up new avenues of exploration on every continent, and new avenues of discovery in laboratories and workshops. It was the dawn of the 20th century and they educated us not only to "what is"...but to "what if". As we seek new discoveries and new adventures in the future we hope there will be literary figures that take us there first that are up to par with the immortal Holmes, Fogg, and Lord Greystoke. This series has chosen one of the best to take us into the 22nd century and perhaps will introduce younger viewers to Holmes and inspire them to read Doyle's original novels. That much better than inspiring them to collect Pokemon cards.

When I heard that there was gonna be a cartoon on about the master detective(though I didn't know it would be animated) I watched the first episode. When I heard the theme song, I thought at once this would be one of those stupid no-deduction cartoons were Moriarty is in everyone and they just run around, etc. But they actually used the final problem! That alone makes this "kids" show unique, and able to watch for adult Holmes fans too! I, having read the entire canon, love how they keep the original stories, add a bit more action (but not too much, you know what I mean), change murders into robberies, assaults, disappearances, temporary disablement, etc. etc. RealmMan couldn't be more wrong! (Oh, and one more thing. Now women have better rights, and Lestrade's descendant is strong and able.) Allow me one more thing. Holmes does deduce, and they aren't cheap ones with no foundation. Holmes can tell by the way a man walks he was once rich and proud, but by his clothes he has lost his fortune and tries to ignore it; when they are trapped in an empty train, instead of busting down the door, fires his gun, starting an alarm and opening the doors. See my point?