Dolce & Gabbana has expanded its line of perfumes with a new scent that delivers the "warm notes" of ylang ylang, musk and sandalwood. It's for dogs. Very fashionable dogs. Luxury dogs, you might say.

The video ad (below) depicts a series of fancy dog breeds with this voiceover: "I am delicate, authentic, charismatic, sensitive, enigmatic, rebel, fresh, irresistible, clean, cause I'm not just a dog, I'm Fefé." — Read the rest

The post Luxury fashion brand launches $100 perfume for your dog, spurring an RSPCA warning appeared first on Boing Boing.

I recently learned how important sniffing is for dogs, and it's changed my entire approach to dog walking for the better! I used to see walks as a chance to get some good exercise and always attempted to walk briskly. My dogs never wanted to cooperate, though, and would constantly stop to sniff things. — Read the rest

The post Take your dog on a "sniff walk" appeared first on Boing Boing.

Enlarge (credit: Azaliya via Getty)

For more than a decade, in blog posts and scientific papers and public talks, the psychologist Hal Herzog has questioned whether owning pets makes people happier and healthier.

It is a lonely quest, convincing people that puppies and kittens may not actually be terrific for their physical and mental health. “When I talk to people about this,” Herzog recently said, “nobody believes me.” A prominent professor at a major public university once described him as “a super curmudgeon” who is, in effect, “trying to prove that apple pie causes cancer.”

As a teenager in New Jersey in the 1960s, Herzog kept dogs and cats, as well as an iguana, a duck, and a boa constrictor named Boa. Now a professor emeritus at Western Carolina University, he insists he’s not out to smear anyone’s furry friends. In a blog post questioning the so-called pet effect, in 2012, Herzog included a photo of his cat, Tilly. “She makes my life better,” he wrote. “Please Don’t Blame The Messenger!”

Read 37 remaining paragraphs | Comments

A man has filed a lawsuit against the town of Sturgeon, Missouri, a little more than a week after a police officer shot and killed his small, blind, and deaf dog.

In a federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Nicholas Hunter alleges that Officer Myron Woodson and the city of Sturgeon violated his Fourth Amendment rights when Woodson killed Teddy, his 13-pound blind and deaf Shih Tzu, shortly after finding the dog wandering in a neighbor's yard on May 19.

"Woodson's warrantless seizure of Teddy was unnecessary, callous, and egregious as it was unwarranted by law and violative of Plaintiff Hunter's most fundamental and guaranteed of constitutional rights," Hunter's lawsuit says. "At no time during the encounter between Teddy and Defendant Woodson did Teddy show any aggression towards Defendant Woodson. Teddy never barked, growled, or even moved towards Defendant Woodson. Instead, the small, blind and deaf dog simply kept trying to walk away, oblivious to the danger that Defendant Woodson posed to him."

The shooting has outraged the town's residents, especially after body camera footage obtained by a local news outlet contradicted the officer and city officials' narrative of events. The mayor of Sturgeon resigned last Saturday evening after defending the shooting for several days, and Woodson has been placed on leave.

The shooting, though, is only an egregious example of a phenomenon that is so common that it has its own tag on Reason's website: "puppycide." No one knows exactly how many dogs police shoot around the country, but every year there are more cases of wanton killings that, besides terrorizing owners, generate huge lawsuits, viral outrage, and in rare instances result in officers being fired, such as the case of an Arkansas officer who casually killed a nine-pound dog.

The incident in Sturgeon started when Teddy dug under Hunter's backyard fence while Hunter was out at dinner and escaped, leaving its collar behind in the process. A neighbor called a county dispatch center to report that the dog had wandered into their yard and to get help finding its owner. According to Hunter's lawsuit, the caller responded, "No, not at all," when asked if the dog was aggressive.

The town of Sturgeon's official Facebook page actually posted an alert on May 19 about the missing dog, along with photos of Teddy: "Do you know this doggie? Joint communications has been notified. The doggie seems in need of medical attention."

Medical attention was not what the doggie received. Woodson arrived on the scene, and a few minutes later he shot Teddy twice.

In the meantime, Hunter had been called and told about the Facebook post. He was on his way to pick up Teddy, but arrived too late.

A day later, the city of Sturgeon posted on Facebook about the incident, defending Woodson's decision: "Based on the behavior exhibited by the dog, believing the dog to be severely injured or infected with rabies, and as the officer feared being bitten and being infected with rabies, the SPD officer felt that his only option was to put the animal down," Sturgeon wrote. "It was later learned that the animal's behavior was because the animal was blind. Unfortunately, the animal's lack of a collar or tags influenced the SPD Officer's decision to put the animal down due to his belief that the animal was injured, sick and abandoned."

Both Hunter and the neighbor filed complaints with the city. "I cannot stress enough that this animal was in no way a threat to others," the neighbor, whose complaint was obtained by local news outlet ABC 17, wrote. "Woodson discharged his firearm multiple times in a residential area without a threat presenting itself, without warning."

ABC 17 also obtained Woodson's body camera footage, which showed that Teddy was never aggressive and didn't bark or growl. Woodson tried to lasso Teddy with a catch pole—a common tool used in animal control—but the dog simply shook its head free of the rope and trotted away. After fumbling the catch pole several times, Woodson drew his gun and killed Teddy. ABC 17 reported that Woodson's entire encounter with Teddy, from exiting his car to putting two bullets in the animal, lasted three minutes and six seconds.

After body camera footage was released, Sturgeon doubled down.

"The City believes that the officer acted within his authority based on the information available to him at the time to protect against possible injury to citizens from what appeared to be an injured, sick, and abandoned dog," Sturgeon posted in a follow-up Facebook post.

Of course, it would have been embarrassing to admit the real reason that the officer resorted to using his gun: He was unable to snare a blind, deaf dog and was too poorly trained to come up with a solution besides shooting a harmless animal.

But police habitually lie about the behavior of dogs that they shoot. Dogs are almost always described in incident reports as snarling, aggressive, or lunging, and because department policies typically allow police to shoot dogs when they feel afraid for their safety, these shootings are almost always deemed justified.

For example, last year in Missouri a police officer shot a family's dog and dumped it in a ditch. Similar to Hunter's case, the dog had gotten loose during a storm, and a neighbor called to report it missing. In another case last year, Detroit cops killed a woman's dog and dumped its body in a trash can. An Arkansas woman also filed a lawsuit after a cop accidentally shot her while trying to kill her Pomeranian—a toy breed that resembles a Koosh ball with legs.

This is the sort of behavior that's flagged as sociopathic when committed by anyone who's not represented by a police union.

And it's the sort of behavior that can cost a small town like Sturgeon quite a lot of money, as city officials are surely fretting now. After Sturgeon's mayor resigned last Friday, the acting mayor posted on Sturgeon's Facebook account: "Like you we were just as appalled by what we saw. The actions of the Officer involved are not the values and beliefs of the residents of Sturgeon or the board of Alderman. Currently I have made calls to the Boone County Sheriff to meet and discuss an investigation."

The city of Sturgeon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The post A Missouri Police Officer Shot a Blind and Deaf Dog. Now He's Being Sued. appeared first on Reason.com.

Every cop with a dog swears it can detect all sorts of contraband. Literally swears. In court. On the stand.

But are drug dogs miraculous wonders of law enforcement due to their training? Or is it due to the domesticated dog’s innate desire to please, especially when it knows it will be rewarded for doing the thing? Or is it simply responding to cues delivered by its handler, some of which may be subconscious?

Well, it’s probably a combination of all these things. Training does get dogs to respond to certain scents. But the training also turns them into an extension of their handler. And then the dog wants what the cop wants: a reason to perform a warrantless search. Both handler and dog are rewarded in their own way. The dog gets a treat. And the cop gets to perform a trick that allows the officer to bypass the Fourth Amendment. (There’s a reason cops hate actually scientific testing of officers and drug dogs, because once the pair is separated, tons of false positives and negatives tend to be generated.)

For a long time, courts were mostly receptive to the assertions made by officers handling drug dogs. If they said in court that the dog “alerted,” the court generally couldn’t find a good reason to consider this testimony flawed.

But now there are cameras in cop cars and cameras on cops’ chests and cameras in the phones pretty much every driver and passenger possesses. Consequently, these assertions about “alerting” are receiving more scrutiny, as are the dogs themselves, who have shown their ability to reliably detect contraband isn’t all that different than allowing cops to flip a coin to determine whether or not they can pursue a warrantless search.

This case, brought to us by FourthAmendment.com, has a court calling bullshit on a supposed “alert.” A pretextual traffic stop that resulted in the discovery of an illegally possessed weapon relied on a search of a car — a search supposedly prompted by the cop dog on the scene.

The defendant, David Edmonds, was hit with a felony in possession charge following this search. He moved to suppress the evidence, claiming the search of his car wasn’t supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion, the latter of which is the minimum that officers need to search a vehicle on public roads.

On the way to this warrantless search, the dashcam video submitted as evidence by the government appears to show a bunch of cops breaking traffic laws en route to violating the Fourth Amendment. From the decision [PDF]:

It was daylight. A white sedan traveling on Fifth Street crossed Broadway in front of Trooper Gabriel, proceeding from the trooper’s right to his left. The first unobstructed view of the sedan appears about six seconds into the video. The sedan’s windows are tinted. On the dashcam footage, nothing is visible inside the car. The car is in view for about four seconds before it travels out of the camera’s range.

A pickup truck followed behind the sedan on Fifth Street also traveling in front of Trooper Gabriel. Trooper Gabriel testified at the hearing that the truck was driven by a law enforcement officer. After the truck passed, Trooper Gabriel ran the red light on Broadway and turned left on Fifth Street following the path of the truck and the sedan, cutting off another car going through the intersection. Trooper Gabriel testified on cross-examination that the car he cut off was driven by another law enforcement officer who he had warned by radio.

The area of Fifth Street is a residential area. Trooper Gabriel picked up speed on Fifth Street. He passed a sign stating that the speed limit is 25. He appeared to be traveling well above that. He testified at the hearing that he was traveling about 40-45 miles per hour.

At this point, there were at least three state troopers, driving three different vehicles in pursuit of a white sedan that had not been observed breaking any traffic laws. Trooper Gabriel, however, had not only run a red light, but was driving 20 mph over the posted speed limit.

If this was a pursuit, there was no indication of that. There is nothing on the record that indicates sirens or lights had been activated, which meant all the officers involved were endangering other drivers for the sole purpose of catching up to a car whose driver hadn’t actually broken any laws himself.

The mayhem continued:

The pickup truck traveling behind the sedan pulled over to the side of the road, and Trooper Gabriel passed it. Trooper Gabriel testified on cross examination that the truck was also a law enforcement officer who he had radioed ahead to pull over. At that point, nothing was between the sedan and Trooper Gabriel, who was still speeding down the residential road. As Trooper Gabriel’s vehicle approached closer, the sedan veered slightly to the right toward the curb and stopped on Fifth Street at an intersection with another street. Trooper Gabriel stopped behind the sedan.

Somehow, every car on the road other than the one this trooper was pursuing was another cop. What a coincidence! I’m surprised the court didn’t demand testimony from all the other alleged “officers” Trooper Gabriel endangered while focused on this white sedan.

Trooper Gabriel followed up his lawbreaking and endangerment of other drivers (some who might have been cops!) by doing whatever the fuck this is:

Trooper Gabriel yelled to the sedan driver to turn the car off. The driver, who was defendant Edmonds, stuck his head slightly out of the driver’s side window, looked back at Trooper Gabriel and apparently asked why he was being asked to turn the car off. Trooper Gabriel stated, “because you just whipped over like crazy.” He again instructed Edmonds to turn the car off. Edmonds apparently again asked why, and Trooper Gabriel responded, “Because I said so.”

About 13 seconds after Trooper Gabriel first instructed Edmonds to turn the car off, Edmonds’ brake lights went off. Trooper Gabriel instructed Edmonds multiple times to get out of the car. About eight seconds after Trooper Gabriel first instructed him to, Edmonds got out of the car. Trooper Gabriel instructed Edmonds to walk toward him. Edmonds complied. Another trooper appears on camera at this point walking toward Edmonds’ car.

Those quoted paragraphs immediately follow the previous quoted paragraphs. All of this was captured by the trooper’s dashcam. The court: “the sedan veered slightly to the right.” Trooper Gabriel: “You whipped like crazy.” Hmm.

Already off to a bad start, but apparently surrounded by other troopers with nothing better to do but violate traffic laws en route to performing a traffic stop, Trooper Gabriel then proceeded to claim he “caught” Edmonds “with no seat belt” and again reiterated his claim (one not supported by his dashcam footage) that Edmonds has “freakin’ just like dipped over.” Let’s go back to the court’s earlier depiction of the dashcam recording to see what it has to say about Trooper Gabriel’s assertion that he saw the man driving without a seat belt.

The first unobstructed view of the sedan appears about six seconds into the video. The sedan’s windows are tinted. On the dashcam footage, nothing is visible inside the car.

Folks, this man is a liar. He lied about seeing the seat belt (or lack thereof) and he lied about the whipping/dipping he claimed to have witnessed.

Having apparently traveled as far he could on this particular line of bullshit, the trooper began insinuating that the thing HE DEFINITELY HAD NOT WITNESSED were indicative of a nervous driver seeking to avoid a traffic stop and/or cover up their possession of contraband.

Since the trooper really had nothing to work with here, he decided to bring in a dog to give him the probable cause he couldn’t possibly hope to obtain on his own. Trooper Gabriel took the dog from his vehicle and walked it around Edmond’s car.

This is what happened:

The dog, whose name is Dragon, appears to follow Trooper Gabriel’s hand. When Trooper Gabriel places his hand in the open driver’s side window, the dog jumps onto the driver’s side door and sticks his head in the window.

Trooper Gabriel then led Dragon all the way around the vehicle until the trooper and the dog returned to the driver’s side door again. At the driver’s side door, Trooper Gabriel told Dragon, “I’m not going to give you your ball . . . You’re going to have to . . . .” Trooper Gabriel then walked back to the state police vehicle, with Dragon leading the way. Trooper Gabriel returned to Edmonds and explained that Dragon does “a passive alert on a vehicle.” Trooper Gabriel stated, “That means he will either sit, or stare, or freeze if he has an indication that there is an odor of narcotics in the vehicle.” Trooper Gabriel stated that Dragon is “right on your driver’s side door handle.”

Edmonds stated, “I didn’t see him do nothing. . . what do they do?” Trooper Gabriel responded, “I just told you.”

Oh, so it’s a new type of alert: the one where the dog doesn’t do much, even when encouraged to do something, anything by its handler. My dog smelled drugs, said the lying state trooper.

Here’s what actually happened:

The officers then searched Edmonds’ car. They found no narcotics…

But they found a gun! And Edmonds was not allowed to have one. The trooper lucked into this discovery by lying about what he had observed prior to the stop, and what the dog had actually done when it performed its sniff.

As for all the whipping and dipping, this is what the court observed thanks to the dashcam footage supplied by the government:

As to his driving, Edmonds’ pulling off to the side of the road seemed a rational response for a driver when a marked law enforcement vehicle is approaching the driver’s vehicle from the rear at a high rate of speed in a residential area, and the vehicle behind the driver has already pulled to the side of the road so that the law enforcement officer could pass him. And, on the dashcam footage, Edmonds appeared to pull over to the side of the road in a reasonable manner…

The government’s response to the suppression motion claimed Trooper Gabriel was “concerned” about Edmonds’ “driving pattern.” Then it claimed the stop was supported by Gabriel’s claim he witnessed Edmonds driving without a seat belt.

Fine, says the court. Have it your way. If the driving wasn’t unlawful, let’s make this all about a seat belt violation. The court goes on to criticize everything about the government’s arguments, as well as everything about the trooper’s actions. And that includes the dog that supposedly gave him permission for a warrantless search of the car.

It first notes that no real traffic stop was performed. Edmonds was not pulled over. Trooper Gabriel never activated his lights or siren. Instead, he just started yelling at Edmonds after he had voluntarily stopped and then began the string of rights violations by ordering him to turn off his car and exit his vehicle.

Even then, it was all bullshit. The court notes that Trooper Gabriel maintained the seal belt violation pretense until redirect under cross examination by Edmonds’ lawyer. At that point, he admitted he had seen the car pass through a “high narcotics” area he was surveilling. Everything was pretext and the trooper obviously hoped to net a drug bust.

Which would explain why he brought out the dog and pretended it had alerted to the scent of narcotics. The court has some things to say about the performance of “Dragon” and the even less-believable performance of Trooper Gabriel.

Going back to what Trooper Gabriel told Edmonds about the supposed alert before he began his constitutional search:

Trooper Gabriel returned to Edmonds and explained that Dragon does “a passive alert on a vehicle.” Trooper Gabriel stated, “That means he will either sit, or stare, or freeze if he has an indication that there is an odor of narcotics in the vehicle.”

The trooper either lied to Edmonds or lied to the court. Actually, it’s not an “either” situation. He lied to both parties. Here’s what happened when the trooper was subjected to cross-examination while testifying:

At the hearing, Trooper Gabriel conceded that Dragon did not sit, stare, or freeze while sniffing Edmonds’ car. He testified, however, that is not actually how Dragon alerts. Instead, Trooper Gabriel testified, the dog alerts by changing his posture and increasing his respiration. He testified the dog’s actions of sitting, staring, or freezing are not an “alert” but rather a “final indication.”

lolwut

The dog alerts by breathing or moving, if it isn’t alerting by sitting, staring, or [re-reads testimony] not moving.

The court isn’t having this. If the court gave this testimony credence, the fact that the dog was present on the scene of any traffic stop and did literally anything (including sitting passively in the trooper’s cruiser), it would be “alerting,” thus “justifying” a warrantless search.

Rather than give this ridiculous cop more leash than he gives his dog, the court shuts this all down, referring to nothing more than the evidence submitted by the government in support (lol!) of this search and arrest.

The Court has viewed the dashcam and bodycam footage numerous times. The Court can discern no difference in the dog’s posture or respiration when he arrives at the driver’s side of the car for the second time, which is when he allegedly alerted. There is no visible change in his rate of respiration. Throughout the sniff of the car, Dragon followed Trooper Gabriel’s hand. He does not ever attempt to walk past Trooper Gabriel. When Trooper Gabriel moves, Dragon follows. When Trooper Gabriel stops, Dragon stops. This is Dragon’s conduct throughout the dog sniff. The only time Dragon walked ahead of Trooper Gabriel was when Dragon walked to the curb after first being released from his crate and then after Dragon completed the drug sniff and headed back to the state trooper vehicle.

The evidence is suppressed. The search was unjustified. Trooper Gabriel is a liar.

The strange thing is the government felt this was worth pursuing in court. Its actions exposed the trooper’s unconstitutional behavior, which began before the traffic stop (that wasn’t even a real traffic stop) was initiated (by the sedan’s driver, rather than the officer). The government had access to the dashcam footage and somehow decided it could get this suppression motion rejected.

That’s the saddest thing of all. When Trooper Gabriel’s employers should have been putting together paperwork to get him drummed out the law enforcement business, it was instead putting its efforts behind an effort that embarrassed everyone involved, including the dog that wanted nothing more than make sure Trooper Gabriel approved of its performance.

I love a spot of virtual tourism, me. During the pandemic, I would scratch my travelling itches with some nice big sessions on Google Earth VR, where I would retrace my steps from holidays of old or explore new places I've always wanted to go.

But those little imaginary expeditions pale in comparison to being able to actually wander around fully realised virtual worlds as a tourist, which is basically exactly what I did in this week's VR Corner thanks to a brand new update for Luke Ross' REAL VR mod. By the way, REAL stands for 'Reality Enhancement Augmentation Layer' if you've ever wondered!

I've featured plenty of Luke's mods on VR Corner before, but my favourite ones of his are always the ones with open-worlds that feel almost like real places. Thanks to the level of detail in the Chicago map that Ubisoft built for it's open-world hack-em-up, Watch Dogs, it's easy to imagine that you're really there. There's so much variety to the environments and buildings and so many lovely little details for you to lean towards and inspect. These range from the first person interiors of the game's cars, through to some of the most delicious looking muffins I've ever seen and even Aidan Pearce's teeth!

Read more

I love a spot of virtual tourism, me. During the pandemic, I would scratch my travelling itches with some nice big sessions on Google Earth VR, where I would retrace my steps from holidays of old or explore new places I've always wanted to go.

But those little imaginary expeditions pale in comparison to being able to actually wander around fully realised virtual worlds as a tourist, which is basically exactly what I did in this week's VR Corner thanks to a brand new update for Luke Ross' REAL VR mod. By the way, REAL stands for 'Reality Enhancement Augmentation Layer' if you've ever wondered!

I've featured plenty of Luke's mods on VR Corner before, but my favourite ones of his are always the ones with open-worlds that feel almost like real places. Thanks to the level of detail in the Chicago map that Ubisoft built for it's open-world hack-em-up, Watch Dogs, it's easy to imagine that you're really there. There's so much variety to the environments and buildings and so many lovely little details for you to lean towards and inspect. These range from the first person interiors of the game's cars, through to some of the most delicious looking muffins I've ever seen and even Aidan Pearce's teeth!

Read more

I love a spot of virtual tourism, me. During the pandemic, I would scratch my travelling itches with some nice big sessions on Google Earth VR, where I would retrace my steps from holidays of old or explore new places I've always wanted to go.

But those little imaginary expeditions pale in comparison to being able to actually wander around fully realised virtual worlds as a tourist, which is basically exactly what I did in this week's VR Corner thanks to a brand new update for Luke Ross' REAL VR mod. By the way, REAL stands for 'Reality Enhancement Augmentation Layer' if you've ever wondered!

I've featured plenty of Luke's mods on VR Corner before, but my favourite ones of his are always the ones with open-worlds that feel almost like real places. Thanks to the level of detail in the Chicago map that Ubisoft built for it's open-world hack-em-up, Watch Dogs, it's easy to imagine that you're really there. There's so much variety to the environments and buildings and so many lovely little details for you to lean towards and inspect. These range from the first person interiors of the game's cars, through to some of the most delicious looking muffins I've ever seen and even Aidan Pearce's teeth!

Read more

Watch Dogs: Legion z roku 2020 mnozí považovali za propadák série s otevřeným světem od Ubisoftu, jejíž premisa „hrát za libovolné NPC“ nedopadla podle představ, ale po čtyřech letech se objevují otázky ohledně budoucnosti série.

Zdá se však, že tato série žádnou budoucnost nemá – přinejmenším ještě nějakou dobu mít nebude.

Tvrdí to tvůrce obsahu zaměřený na Ubisoft j0nathan, který prohlásil, že série Watch Dogs je „mrtvá a pohřbená“. Na otázku ohledně budoucnosti série a toho, zda se pracuje na novém dílu, tvůrce obsahu naznačil, že série byla odložena k ledu. Údajně po komerčním neúspěchu hry Watch Dogs: Legion Ubisoft zrušil řadu dříve plánovaných projektů Watch Dogs, včetně „poměrně originální“ battle royale hry.

Zda to znamená, že Ubisoft nemá v úmyslu vyvíjet novou hru Watch Dogs, se teprve uvidí, ale rozhodně to vypadá, že tato série klesla v pořadí priorit společnosti na samé dno.

Zajímavé je, že ačkoli se nové hry Watch Dogs v nejbližší době nedočkáme, minulý měsíc bylo oznámeno, že se pod hlavičkou New Regency začal připravovat film na motivy této IP.

https://twitter.com/D3falt404/status/1781969641587281929?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1781972441629143540%7Ctwgr%5E51018f069c42332a475d93489c0ab7f969e07be1%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgamingbolt.com%2Fwatch-dogs-series-is-dead-and-buried-rumour

Článek Série Watch Dogs je údajně „mrtvá a pohřbená“ se nejdříve objevil na GAME PRESS.

Watch Dogs, Ubisoft's open-world sci-fi hacker series, is reportedly the latest in an ever-growing list of video games to get the live-action movie treatment, with Talk to Me actor Sophie Wilde said to be in talks to star.

That's according to Deadline, which reports the Watch Dogs movie will be helmed by director Mathieu Turi (who's currently adapting A Plague Tale for television), working from a screenplay by Christie LeBlanc - the writer behind Netflix's 2021 French sci-fi thriller Oxygen.

The Watch Dogs movie is in development at New Regency Productions but, beyond word of Talk to Me actor Sophie Wilde's potential involvement and the rather obvious note from Deadline that it'll be "set within the universe of Ubisoft's" series, details are limited.

Read more

Remember when Ubisoft announced they were working on a movie adaptation of hacking series Watch Dogs, before it was even released? I sure didn’t! Well, allow us both to be reminded of something from over a decade ago, because the Watch Dogs film is still apparently A Thing. It’s more of A Thing now, too, because it has actual names attached rather than just a corporation’s vague “excitement” about licensing out its IP.

Read more

As video game adaptations continue to ramp up, it looks like Watch Dogs will be one of the next titles to get the treatment.

Deadline reports today that studio New Regency is developing an adaptation of the Ubisoft property. Sophie Wilde, who broke out in A24's hit horror …

The tides have turned in the cultural consensus on videogame adaptations, thanks to the success of The Last of Us, Sonic movies, and more well-received live-action projects in recent years. This might be good news for Watch Dogs, which is lined up to receive the big-screen treatment.

There's a well-known saying about finding connection in the nation's capital city: If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.

Robot Dreams, a new animated film that is up for this year's Academy Award for best animated feature, proposes a sort of twist on that idea. What if you are a dog? And you live in New York City? But you still want a friend.

Well then. Maybe the answer is to get a robot.

Robot Dreams is a whimsical, wordless story set in a fantasy version of early 1980s New York in which every person is an animal. It follows Dog, a lonely apartment dweller in the East Village who spends his days playing Pong and watching television, as he purchases a mail-order robot who quickly becomes his best and closest friend. But after a swim on a day trip to the beach, Robot becomes inoperable. Dog is forced to leave Robot on the beach for the long winter, when the beach is closed. What will he do without his best friend?

The answer, it turns out, is that he'll have to find a new friend—perhaps in the form of Duck, a pretty, sporty pal he meets flying kites in Central Park, or perhaps in the form of a new Palbot, one who isn't the same as his old Robot, but who offers a different form of companionship. Robot, meanwhile, spends the winter on the beach, dreaming of Dog, and hoping for a way to escape his strange entrapment.

Robot Dreams is a tale of love and friendship, and it is decidedly sweet-natured without being sentimental. The story's indie comic roots—it was adapted from a 2007 comic of the same name—are obvious: More than most animated films, it captures the distinctive, quirky sensibility of hand-drawn, indie comic line work.

That gives the central story an affable, fablelike quality. It also allows for a level of environmental and period specificity that is rare in any sort of film, animated or otherwise. The movie's early 1980s NYC setting is rendered in pointillistic detail, with intricate sign work and gritty city blocks populated by animal versions of New York street characters.

That includes the city's difficult, impersonal bureaucracy: One reason Dog can't rescue Robot from the beach is that there's a grumpy NYPD officer who refuses to let him through the locked gate onto the sand. Dog visits the city courthouse to plead his case, but his application for a special winter visit to the beach is quickly denied. There's a layered, lived-in quality that even the busiest Pixar movies and the most precisely recreated historical live-action films lack.

The contrast between the ordinariness of the scenario, the unconventional intricacy of the animation, and the fantastical animal characters gives the movie a peculiarity and a particularity that keeps the low-key sweetness afloat. There's magic in the mundanity of it all, which, come to think of it, is how love and friendship work too.

The post Oscar-Nominated <i>Robot Dreams</i> Is a Gentle Animated Love Story About Dogs, Robots, and 1980s New York appeared first on Reason.com.

I love this dog who comes bopping along to the beat that some park-goers are listening to. The nice dance crew in the video seems so happy to see the dog enjoying the music too. I love how they all cheer the dog on. — Read the rest

The post Dog bops along to the beat with park-goers appeared first on Boing Boing.