Bee and PuppyCat: The Series

[KingVamp]

​

​

From the people who brought you Adventure Time and Bravest Warriors, here comes Bee and PuppyCat.

"Bee and PuppyCat" is a very popular original cartoon created by Natasha Allegri. In it, Bee, an out-of-work twenty-something, has a life-changing collision with a mysterious creature she names PuppyCat ("A cat?... or maybe a dog?"). Between space and time, Bee and PuppyCat take on an intergalactic babysitting gig to pay another month’s rent. Now, you can help Bee write a happy ending for PuppyCat’s tale of betrayal, intrigue, and magical sparkle transformations.

If you are interested in this show, check out the first episode.
Source

 

[Tom Bombadildo]

I sort of skipped around the first episode, it's kinda funny. At one point it sounded like the PuppyCat or whatever was saying "fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck" so I laughed...lol

I like Adventure Time, so more shows like it is ok by me.

 

[Gahars]

KingVampPostsAnotherKickstarterThread.gif

I saw the pilot and liked it decently enough. I don't think I'd go out of my way to watch the show, but I don't mind it existing. So consider that Gahars' Seal of Approval, I guess.

 

[GameWinner]

Seems pretty interesting. I'll probably watch a little of it later today.

 

[frogboy]

I can relate to the entire first episode. All of it.

 

[Foxi4]

Here's the thing...

Kickstarter was created to promote ideas of creators who don't necessarily have enough financing behind them to make their projects a reality. It was started in the belief that everyday Joes can create amazing things even within the confines of their garages and all those fantastic ideas deserved recognition and support to enter the market saturated by "big name company/developer/studio" products, that they deserve to surface through the thick layer of "branded" devices, books, movies, games or music.

...so why are those big companies, developers and studios using Kickstarter? They can finance their own damned projects. Why is Keiji Inafune using it to promote "Mighty No.9", why is Fred Seibert using it to promote "Bee and Puppycat" and why are these practices not frowned upon yet?

Kickstarted used to be about thinking big about small, underfinanced, understaffed enterprises but these days it became an outlet for market analysis. Companies which are doing perfectly fine use it to gauge the interest in their products on the basis of donations and I believe it perverts the original foundations of Kickstarter, the whole idea behind it.

I don't understand why people fall for this so obviously transparent trap and I strongly discourage financing such "big name" projects because they don't need your financing, they have publishers behind them who are more than eager to finance a product if it's pitched right.

Go and finance some amateur inventor instead. It doesn't matter if the "big name" product is "good" - what matters is whether it needs your support or not, and 9 out of 10 times it doesn't. I could understand if the company was left publisher-less and was in a financial crisis, but it's not - "Adventure Time" is at the peak of its popularity worldwide, what possible monetary concerns can Fred Seibert have at this point in time? None.

 

[Gahars]

*snip*

Crowd funding has always been about letting people fund the projects and creators they want first and foremost. This is "letting the free market decide" in action. If people want to fund a project from a big name, then why not let them? The people can decide for themselves whether or not the project is worth investing in. You yourself extol the virtues of the free market, and here it is.

It's kind of silly to portray this all as pure, innocent crowdfunding being corrupted by big business, man. When did you grow your goatee, ya beatnik.

 

[Heran Bago]

It's really easy to crap all over someone's attempts at starting or furthering a career with social funding when you post on internet message boards all day.

I'm sure you guys watched the videos on the kickstarter page but to summarize. A cartoon that's mature without chiefly lowbrow humor that is for girls and is by a woman is a tough sell to producers. Securing financing is a make-it-or-break deal that takes years to go through but is probably not going to happen next to another season of Aqua Teen or Johnny Test. I'm not trying to poke my stick in the social justice beehive this is what producers and market research think would sell.

Consider every one of these kickstarters as an individual case. Think both about if the thing really needs the funding and how the the lives of the people asking would be affected. On one end of the spectrum there is the Veronica Mars kickstarter where no one is going to be out of a job if the thing fails, and on the other real small business ventures that wouldn't exist otherwise. I believe that this cartoon would probably not happen beyond a few small webisodes without secure funding, and taking years to secure that chance of funding means the writers and artists have to work other crappy jobs for a few years instead of doing what they really want to do. If you can give a dollar to a homeless guy with a cardboard sign or someone playing an instrument in public, then why not for a cartoon that you or someone you know would get a kick out of?

 

[Foxi4]

Crowd funding has always been about letting people fund the projects and creators they want first and foremost. This is "letting the free market decide" in action. If people want to fund a project from a big name, then why not let them? The people can decide for themselves whether or not the project is worth investing in. You yourself extol the virtues of the free market, and here it is.

It's kind of silly to portray this all as pure, innocent crowdfunding being corrupted by big business, man. When did you grow your goatee, ya beatnik.

Now, now, now - don't mistake my approach with your usual "free thinker fedora-wearing neckbeard hipster" kind of approach - you know me very well and as you've mentioned yourself, I'm a big proponent of "free market" which regulates itself, but you have to adjust your approach to the context.

Free market is a lot like a very exclusive, expensive club - everyone is welcome to enter it, however the entrance fee can be pretty hefty. Kickstarter was created for those who want to enter the market but have no material means of doing so - it's for industrial upstarters. In a normal economical situation such upstarters would present their business plan to a bank and ask for a loan for their business venture, however either due to the economical crisis or other external or internal reasons such a loan may be out of reach or insufficient - this is where Kickstarter "kicks in" - said business or project plan can be presented to "the crowd" which can decide whether to fund it or not. A sizable company which already is a part of the market and produces its own revenue is to a large extent self-sufficient in regards of funding - they no longer require crowdfunding to enter the market - they are a part of the market.

We can't really speak of the "free market doing its job" in the context of Kickstarter unless you consider the vague promise of a product or an idea "products" - Kickstarter isn't about "selling" anything, it's about convincing users to invest in your idea so that "a product" is created. Kickstarter plays the role of "a decentralized bank" rather than a sales outlet and it provides the creators with "low-risk funding", not "revenue".

 

[KingVamp]

Funded with 5 days to go. You should be able watch it on your 3ds (at the time of this post), but it's not 3D.

 

[KingVamp]

They are making at least 9 episodes.