« Winning mayoral slogan of the decade. | Main | Places to avoid today. »

April 06, 2005

"Puppy Bowl" may spark 24-hour all-puppy television channel.

I don't know if the wife and I were the only people who saw this, but during the Super Bowl, Animal Planet aired a simple show called "Puppy Bowl."

The entire show consisted of a large room, maybe the size of a large dining room, set up like a football field and littered with dog toys. They released about a dozen puppies into the room and just showed 3 hours of the puppies playing. That's all. It was obsessive.

They had a camera under the water dish. They cycled in new puppies from time to time. When a puppy had an accident, a man dressed as a referee came out and threw a flag, then cleaned up the mess.

Just puppies playing and tackling and trying to sleep and whatall. You couldn't tear your eyes away.

It appears that someone else was equally obsessed, because the show's success is sparking interest in The Puppy Channel, which would be 24-hours of all puppies, all the time. Sounds like a cure for cancer to me.

You can catch some video of the Puppy Bowl that aired on Super Sunday here.

You can even buy the whole thing on DVD.

Posted by Dan at April 6, 2005 08:02 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


I'm personally hoping for a "Pope Channel" to cover the highlights of the funeral and impending appointment of the next Holy Father. The whole thing can end when the white smoke rises out of the Sisteen Chapel. At that point they can change to the "Michael Jackson Channel" or whatever suits the current tastes. Pop Culture, Pop Channels. We deserve no less. hehe

Posted by: Ralph at April 6, 2005 09:14 PM

A kitten channel would be ever so much better.

Posted by: Kimm at April 6, 2005 09:53 PM

Must . . . watch . . . puppies.

Posted by: Mrs. Popping Culture at April 6, 2005 11:27 PM

Kittens sleep too much. 20 of 24 hours would just be them sleeping.

Posted by: Dan at April 7, 2005 11:23 AM

Being much brighter than their canine counterparts, kittens require interaction before they stupidly expend their energy.
Kittens are the single highest pinnacle of evolution.
And they're still much cuter.
So there!

Posted by: Kimm at April 7, 2005 12:31 PM

Kittens may be cuter, but they wouldn't make better 24-hour television. That's all I'm saying.

Posted by: Dan at April 7, 2005 01:24 PM

Ok, when I read that I got the funniest mental picture...
A dusty street in the Old West. From the gambling hall comes Dan, white hat cocked back on his head, the tin star on his chest catching the sunlight.
Kimm emerges from the saloon, her black Stetson wobbling as she attempts simultaneous ambulation and hat wearing.
They glare at each other for an endless moment, then their hands become a blur of motion, Dan drawing a wiggling puppy while Kimm counters with a sleepy kitten...
Mine is better behaved. And yours left a present in your holster.

Posted by: Kimm at April 7, 2005 02:43 PM

You seem to be mis-interpreting the discussion. The discussion is not about whether cats are better than dogs, the discussion is about which would make for a better, more lively 24-hour television network.

I'm happy to concede your cats point, since the ratio of cat:dog in our house is 2:1.

Posted by: Dan at April 7, 2005 05:03 PM

My apologies, Dan. I was just kind of having fun with it, didn't mean to derail the thread.

Posted by: Kimm at April 7, 2005 06:45 PM

No worries. I'm puppy-sensitive when I'm running a fever.

Posted by: Dan at April 7, 2005 09:29 PM

Just for the record, I loved the Sergio Leone moment. Woe to the petslinger whose twichy draw finds only a fistful of hamster.

Posted by: Pete at April 8, 2005 02:23 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Remember me?