I've seen shows trying to copy or remake the old one, but 70% of the time it ends up a total failure and gets canceled after the first 3 episodes. This show however wasn't made for adults, you can obviously tell with all the cliché jokes and the same plot line. There is one thing you have to thank this show for, keeping Garfield alive and strong. Kids aren't in to comic books, or comic "strips" as much as they were 2 decades ago, Since Garfield isn't really adapted to TV yet since the 1980s or so (sorry if I'm wrong I'm 15) The spirit of Garfield might of just died out if it wasn't for change and I think this is it, getting CHILDREN to like this show so who knows maybe one of them will carry on Garfield through another 20 years or so? we could only hope Garfield lives as long as it can even if we have to go through some change.Oh and I never actually reviewed this show, I think its pretty funny at times I actually like the animation style its not to much I think the way Jon runs makes me laugh the most (not the way he was animated but the way he was meant to walk)I honestly think any kid would like this show, but I know really long Garfield fans would have a hard time to adjust.

I've loved the Garfield specials and the TV show, Garfield and Friends. I am a huge fan of this lazy, orange cat and looked forward to this new 3D-animated show. It was a mistake I should've never done. The first episode I watched was about invading lasagnas. The episode airing on TV now is a recent episode about robots invading the earth. It's basically the same episode, just slightly altered! The next episode was about Odie falling in love with a hair-brush (A watered down version of Rocko's Modern Life, perhaps), not to mention those horrible "pot of gold" and "dog contest" episodes, which has already been in countless cartoon. Garfield talks in this show by moving his lips, which means humans can understand him in this show. This makes it a lot easier for the writers to solve his problems in the most typical ways.There's very few reasons to even like this show. It has everything you've watched on TV before, but sugar-coated by using a popular cartoon character. The writing is horrible, the voices are annoying and the animation is mediocre at best. You can clearly see why they chose 3D- animation (Psst! Low production costs!).

I couldn't agree more with timgneher's review. I'll add my 2 cents as well.My daughter was watching this show and I sat down to give it a chance myself. Although the animation was very amateurish (in the vein of "Sid The Science Kid"), I decided to give it a try. I knew off the bat that since Lorenzo Music's death, any Garfield show wouldn't be "as good" as the Garfield of the late 80s/early 90s, but I thought it might be able to hold its own. I was sadly mistaken.Even though I was thirteen when "Garfield & Friends" debuted, the show was so well written that you couldn't help but love it. The best part about it was the tongue-in-cheek jokes and pop culture references only the adults would get. For example: "Hello, this is Garfield your doorman." - a reference to Garfield voice actor Lorenzo Music's roll on the 70s TV show "Rhoda".Jon makes Garfield a bet that he can't go a whole day without watching TV. The TV comes to life and tries to entice Garfield to watch it. When Garfield unplugs the set, the TV counters with "Garfield, what are you doing? We had such fun together. Gaaarrrrfiieeelld... Gaaarrrrfiieeelld... ggiiivvveee mmeee yyooouuurrr aannnsswwweeerrr dddoooo" - a reference to Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey.The list goes on. To me it was always as if the writers were saying to weary parents, "Yeah, we know you're up early with your kids on your day off, we feel your pain." The new show has none of that. Not one bit. It's geared solely to young elementary school aged children who don't notice just how much substance it lacks. The only similarity to the Garfield of old is that this show also stars a fat lasagna loving cat named Garfield. Jon and Odie are equally one-dimensional. I'm so thankful that Bill Waterson never let Calvin or Hobbs go though this kind of indignity (although, showing such respect for his own work maybe proof that he could have gone on for decades more.) Even Berke Breathed and Gary Larson's commercial success was always tempered with respect to their creation. It's clear that Jim Davis sees Garfield as his own personal ATM. He has that right of course, but it doesn't make it any less pitiful.Mediocrity? Thy name is "The Garfield Show."

"Garfield and Friends" is something I highly recommend. As with most people, I grew up with it and still love it to this day. "The Garfield Show" is good, it is nice to watch and quite entertaining, but in terms of charm and fun it is inferior. It is not quite the Garfield I grew up with. That said, the CGI animation here is very good indeed, with colourful background art and sharp character features. The theme tune is nice as well, and the voice acting was decent. Frank Welker is a brilliant voice actor, and while no Lorenzo Music who owned the character of Garfield, he is good. Oadie is quite adorable, then again I have always loved Oadie. And Jon is appealing enough. There are shortcomings however. One is the writing, it wasn't terrible, but it wasn't the dry and witty dialogue that made "Garfield and Friends" so enjoyable. Garfield's asides especially weren't as laugh out loud funny here. Another is Garfield himself, as I've said Welker was fine as his voice, but Garfield isn't quite the same here. He does eat a lot, thank goodness they didn't miss out the fact he loves lasagne, sometimes mischievous and not always that nice to Oadie, but here he isn't lazy enough. Also some of the stories are a little unoriginal and predictable. In conclusion, it is nice, but is it the best Garfield show out there? No, Garfield fans may be disappointed, but those looking for some harmless fun will like it. 6/10 Bethany Cox