The format - reggler 23 min TV show, prestige mini-series or full blown 70mm theatrical extravaganza - is yet to be decided but irrespective of form, the content is settled: footage of dogs, dogs of varying breeds, tempraments and drooliness, each for the duration in formal "SIT!" position, perhaps a number of them forming a loose circle around one or more toddlers who potter, tumble and chatter largely wordlessly, most oblivious to the chilling fixity of the gazes canine, one or two of the more sensive cottoning on as the show progresses, such toddlers' play becoming less demonstrative and a measure more wary, the dogs alarmingly impassive, little to suggest direct mental involvement with the scene played out before them beyond occasional febrile wags of tail and lollings of rough, pink tongue.
-- calum, Dec 19 2008

KIddystare referenced briefly at DVD times http://www.dvdtimes...php?contentid=11312
Can't believe I googled that at work. [calum, Dec 19 2008]

Can we not have dogs starring AS toddlers? This would involve the dogs being dressed up in nappies, chewing on dummies and of course, dare I even go there, at least appearing to be being breast fed? Either way, it's a totally ridiculous idea so I am of course therefore awarding it this slice of doughy cake +
-- xenzag, Dec 19 2008


I would recommend that the circle of doggies starts with just two or three fairly harmless looking animals and then, to increase the dramatic tension, more and bigger doggies gradually join the circle, with perhaps a few obviously hungry strays turning up at the end. +
-- DrBob, Dec 19 2008


Just remembered The Day Today's human-human equivalent "Kiddystare" which wasn't in my thoughts when coming up with the idea but certainly seems to have had a subconscious impact on my drafting (i.e. the circular format).
-- calum, Dec 19 2008


"And when they looked from toddler to dog and from dog to audience member, and from audience member to toddler again, they found it impossible to say which was which."
{Apologies to Orwell}
-- Jinbish, Dec 19 2008


//reggler/ sp. regglur, comme "newclur"
-- AbsintheWithoutLeave, Dec 19 2008


I don't know Absinthe, I suppose it depends on where your inner Amercian hails from: mine is more scando-midwestern than proto-Texan good ol' boy.

But I think that the thing that I missed, the mistake that I made, with the idea is to assume that just because the dogs' gazes are toward the toddlers, that said gazes are indeed fixed upon the children before them. This is baseless and unwarranted. Until dogs are able to talk, to converse with us with some language, still rudimentary but hopefully greater than "sausages", we will remain hidebound by our inevitable anthropomorphising of their thoughts and will not know the true meanings of their looks. There are those who claim that dogs most certainly do not see the world as we see it and further that their experience of reality is far deeper and more complex than the series of thoughtless wants we ascribe to them. No indeed, claims have been made throughout the history of the published fringe (lunatic or otherwise sensitive to the alignment of the spheres) that dogs, in fact, exist in time quite differently from humans, at all points in their lifespan at once (making a mockery of our feeble "dog years" attempts to constrain them to a more human linearity, while simultaneously engendering in each dog its own independently derived faith in a highly Calvinistic stripe of predeterminism) and accordingly would be, were the entertainment proposed to be brought to broadcast reality, looking not at the toddlers but at the whole life of each person featured (for we humans will naturally determine the tots the stars, not these co-opted seer-hounds), from purple, wailing wean to piss-soaked near corpse, which may go some way to explaining the, ho ho ho, hangdog expressions of droopier breeds but until such time as a mutual alphabet of canine-human understanding is formed, this show will remain a condensed Up series for only the quadruped portion of the audience.
-- calum, Dec 22 2008


so, you're a cat lover then?
-- po, Dec 22 2008


Oh, no. Cats are much less interesting.
-- calum, Dec 22 2008


What a 'dumb' idea.
-- quantum_flux, Dec 22 2008



random, halfbakery