Pretentious and Proud

Pretentious and Proud

Last night I watched Oscar winning, classic Disney animation Beauty and the Beast for the first time. I had been told of this masterpiece and how I needed to view it now. So I sat down, I watched it and what did I think? A resounding meh. At first I thought I was just watching an overrated film but then I realised it may be my own pretentious nature setting in. Feeling very pretentious and pleased with myself that my standards are far more refined than Oscar winning animation I went with a friend today to watch SpongeBob Square Pants a Sponge out of Water. My refined standards spontaneously combusted as I not only enjoyed but laughed out loud multiple times throughout the film. Sure nostalgia played a role but why was I so pretentious about a high quality film but loved a random kid’s film that showed me what it would be like to be stoned?

 

The definition of the word pretentious is attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed. Here’s the problem. I was not attempting to impress anyone with my opinions of these films, if I was my opinions would surely be switched around. But these are just two films, a very small sample. Maybe I should look deeper.

 

When you meet a new person and you hear them speak what kind of thoughts are going through your mind. What are the first few things you will often say after the typical greeting? I am a very dry individual so I often can’t help myself but use a bunch of witty and sarcastic humour. My friend meanwhile will be incredibly happy and bubbly and try to be as enjoyable as humanly possible. While all the happy makes me very sad it does point out that one of us is very accepting and friendly while the other is more reserved and pretentious.

 

Yes I am admitting I am pretty pretentious at times. When I sit with my large group of friends I interact in a witty and sarcastic way. Sarcasm in itself can be pretty damn pretentious. All comedy is based of misery, sarcasm in many ways simply put’s the user slightly above the victim for a brief moment in highlighting something they’ve done. To me it’s funny but many dislike it for being too pretentious which is understandable.

 

Being pretentious is kind of similar to pride. At times it seems both are necessary, just not too much. When you call someone pretentious you mean they are pretending to be more important than they are. Isn’t being more important one of life’s great goals for some of us. Some of us are happy being in the background but some of us want to be the very best (like no one ever was). Some of us want to be recognised, to be remembered. Some of us just want are born to strive to be better.

 

We all have that one friend. They’re a massive idiot and let’s face it … a bit of a cock. We know who they are and we know what they’re like but they’re our friends anyway. Why exactly? Because they’re the type of idiot who is very likeable along with it. The likeable idiot amongst us isn’t an idiot because they’re not smart, rather they’re an idiot for being pretentious. They’re pretentious because they became like that from their surroundings and they’re pretentious because they enjoy it. They see themselves as societies elite and why? I don’t know but who cares, they’re still a cock but your friend anyway!

 

Fellow pretentious people don’t let anyone stifle your natural ways. You carry on using unnecessarily long words, you carry on speaking metaphorically for no apparent reason. You carry on using wit and claiming you’re the comedic genius of the group and carry on claiming you’re the intelligent one of the family! Why? Because it’s who you are and what you are and if you’re like me you’re probably right anyway. After all, I am the genius of the family.

A Five Nights at Freddy's Recollection

A Five Nights at Freddy’s Recollection

All things that are popular are popular for a reason. Batman is popular because he’s awesome, Twilight is popular because lonely and desperate housewives want to feel fulfilled and 50 Shades of Grey is popular is popular because there is no justice in the world. What about Five Nights at Freddy’s. It has three games now and the third is certainly dividing opinion. Now more than ever opinion seems to be split on the franchise so what better time to talk about it?

So for the three of you who have been living under a rock what is Five Nights at Freddy’s? Well while each game adds more mechanics and gimmicks each game features a security guard sitting completely still in an office, trying to stop yourself from being killed by animatronics that may be possessed by murdered children or stuffed with dead bodies. Yeah, not disturbing in any way. Add a heap of tense and creepy atmosphere, some deep and interesting lore and backstory and some compelling gameplay and you have a great trilogy right?

 

When the first game came out I couldn’t find anyone who disliked it. It was original, it was intense and it was downright scary. Thousands of theories were spouted from the backstory, it made many YouTubers from their over the top reactions to the jump scares. Then again, it scared a lot of people. Most horror games are scary because of what you find and the atmosphere of the location. Five Nights at Freddy’s was scary because you were completely helpless. You couldn’t run away or fight back. All you can do is close your doors and hope your power doesn’t run out. I wasn’t the jump scares that was the scariest bit, but rather the waiting for the animatronics to come and seeing them move around the building. I think this game is great.

 

The sequel was certainly interesting. Its mechanics were slightly changed up and more animatronics were added. A large slice of new info on the lore was presented to us and some weird ass death mini games entered the game. At the time it came out many thought this game was even scarier. I understand, you didn’t have doors anymore, you had to wear a Freddy mask and watch them stand in front of you and glare with their messed up faces. Strangely however, I wouldn’t say it’s scarier per say. The jump scares were more surprising and the mini games were a good addition but the atmosphere wasn’t as thick and it felt a lot less Claustrophobic. It was still really good though and the franchise was still just as popular.

 

The third game was released and things got more interesting. This is where opinion started to split amongst the crowd. The game had sort of a 50/50 split with people having savage arguments in YouTube comment sections. The game was a bit different, there was one animatronic, there was a ventilation system you had to keep on top of and you had to lure the creature away. The death mini games were back in the form of compulsory mini games at the end of each night with hidden mini games to explain the lore and get the alternate ending. Personally I didn’t think this one was as good. I seemed like it was being a bit pretentious with its ridiculous hard to find mini games (The tiles in the office … really) and it was nowhere near as scary. It was still decent though and not worthy of huge amounts of hate like it has been. So why is there so much hatred?

 

Maybe because it’s popular? On the internet people love things that are fairly unknown, it makes it really cool. People tend to dislike popular stuff. It’s not hipster anymore. But there has to be more … there is.

 

People complain it’s not scary anymore. Well duh. Things get less scary the more you experience them. The game isn’t as shocking the longer it goes on, that’s normal. Even the most terrifying things ever created will eventually get scary. Maybe saying having a cutesy animal animatronic jump out at you wasn’t even scary in the first place. It was the build-up and the tension. This was especially apparent in the first game. Every time you put the camera down you could get attacked. They moved, you anxiously waited for them to move before your power runs out. Foxy was genius, the slow and tense atmosphere would become quick and hectic as you scrambled to close the door before it gets down the corridor. The game was great and remained tense even when it got less scary because you wanted to make it to 6 AM. The second was similar in how scary and tense it was and while the third was disappointing and felt like it was there to serve the lore it was at least enjoyable and a nice way to tie up the series.

 

Let’s talk about the lore a little more. I find it hard to believe this was ever supposed to be a trilogy. I imagine it was meant to be a scary one off game with a vague but interesting story. The game was expanded and more sequels were added and the lore was increased but I have always thought the story telling was very clever. It gives enough to theorise but not enough to 100% prove anything and equally never just giving it away. It is very clever as the creator knows at this point an out and out answer would never be able to live up to the hype and expectation you have in your head. In reality any theory could be correct and Scott Cawthon may not even have an entire backstory mapped out. It leaves it to us to fill it in and it makes a highly interesting plot.

 

I think the biggest reason Five Nights at Freddy’s has lost its popularity is because after the success of the first one everyone over hyped the sequels. Hype is a terrible thing for a game, a game will almost never live up to its hype and our opinion will be tainted before we even play it. Maybe we expect a bit too much. These are fun and tense games, is it too much to expect them to go down in gaming history as some of the great horror games like a Silent Hill 2. Will we still be talking about them in about 5 years’ time? Probably not. Were they a good experience when we played them and for a long while afterwards as we pondered on the identity of the purple man or the significance of Golden Freddy? Absolutely yes. So let’s enjoy them while they last and enjoy that lovely feeling of nostalgia when we stumble across them somewhere years later and always remember to watch pirates cove and wind up your music box. Or maybe just get a job where you’re probably not going to die, that’d work too.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame - Film Review

The Hunchback of Notre Dame - Film Review

What do you think of when you think of a Disney film? Personally I imagine a fairy tale with a likeable main protagonist lots of magic and wonder and a pleasant tale of good triumphing over evil. Something like that. I haven’t read Victor Hugo’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame but if I’m not mistaken it’s a dark and twisted story about the corruption of Church and it involves huge amounts of death, attempted rape and most the main characters dead. Not quite the same really so this does seem like a strange film for Disney to make. Furthermore this film came out after Pocahontas where Disney was starting to lose some of its popularity. This film had the making of a disaster so I sat down last week feeling extremely ill looking forward to ripping it apart. About ninety minutes later I had a film that made me wish I had written my top 5 animated films list after seeing this rather than before.

 

Does this film have problems? Yes it does. Is it perfect? Absolutely not? But the good in this film is so good I couldn’t not talk about it. The Hunchback of Notre Dame is about a hunchback named Quasimodo who lives in the bell tower of Notre Dame. He cannot leave and only interactions come with Judge Claude Frollo, a highly religious man who teaches Quasimodo to see himself as an abomination. The film is primarily about Quasimodo’s quest for acceptance and happiness as he eventually leaves the tower for the Festival of Fools and meets the Gypsy girl Esmeralda.

 

Let’s start with the story. While not the films strongest point it’s by no means bad. It’s pacing is a little off at times and it does occasionally feel slightly clunky but the film is in its characters, not plot. The film seemed to struggle whether to do what it wanted or be as faithful as possible to the novel, which as a Disney film we know won’t happen. It also confused me why the crowd randomly turned on Quasimodo and how abruptly Esmeralda and Phoebus fall in love. However it was enjoyable and the progression in the characters was clear, so I can’t complain.

 

Quasimodo is a very likeable character. It doesn’t take long for us to really get behind him and feel sorry for him, he has been so unfortunate in his life. While not the most subtle metaphor, him looking so ugly does make a point as he is such a kind individual with the purest of intentions. It’s impossible not to like this guy as he’s so endearing and good natured. However he’s not so perfect that he’s not realistic. He makes mistakes and uniquely for a Disney film he doesn’t get the girl but I can’t help but feel happy for him when he finds his acceptance and moves on with his life.

 

The love interest of the film (Quite a busy one with three guys after her) is a Gypsy named Esmeralda. She’s okay I guess but nothing special. She’s just your typical nice but independent female lead. Maybe the fact that she’s a Gypsy but acts kindly towards Quasimodo is supposed to be interesting but I didn’t really get that if it was the case. There’s nothing wrong with her, she’s just not particularly engaging. The same applies to Phoebus and their romance. Phoebus is the new captain of the guard and again there’s nothing really wrong with him. He had good intentions, he helps people etc he is kind of like the typical Disney Prince cliché, just a little bland. The romance between then is pretty dull too, they just throw one liners at each other and then fall in love. It does make more sense plot wise for them to be together it just doesn’t grasp my interest.

 

The main thing I wanted to talk about is the villain Frollo. This is a superb villain. His actions and intentions are as diabolical as any villain I can think of but he sees himself as a soldier for God and free of sin. He gets away with his awful deeds by convincing everyone, including himself that he’s doing it as an act of God. It makes not just a great villain, but a great character in general. He is very developed and interesting and is the best part of the film. His motivations are very controversial for a Disney film, he is essentially abusing his power as he lusts over Esmeralda. It’s twisted and almost shocking but at the same time it was interesting to see from a Disney film. It’s awful the way he makes Quasimodo inadequate is horrific and I couldn’t believe what I was seeing when I saw the old man smelling the young woman’s hair. Frollo was without doubt a fantastic villain.

 

Speaking of shocking, some of the imagery in this film was certainly unconventional from Disney, as was the constant talk of God and religion. I enjoyed the music in this film, not because it was catchy but because it was powerful and told the story. The opening song and Hellfire song in particular were great and I particularly enjoyed the choir which was powerful and impactful. The Hellfire song was very risqué for Disney with the imagery of a seductive woman, the begging to banish Esmeralda to Hell and Hell’s fire. This song was great because it gave us insight into Frollo and how he believes he isn’t to blame despite his many sins. It does exactly what a song should do in a musical and describe how the character is feeling and what is behind his or her motivations.

 

There were some problems however. The Gipsies and their culture in the film I thought were confusing, especially for a younger audience. It portrays them as thieves and uncivilised creatures at times, but at other times you’re supposed to be sympathetic at how they’re misunderstood. Then you see their fortress and it’s full of all their stolen stuff, but then Esmeralda, the one they all seem to look up to is kind and caring. Frollo wants to kill them all but Phoebus who is a high class civilian pity’s them. Even the Festival of Fools is conflicting in its messages. They come across at first as fun loving at first but they turn on Quasimodo quickly and practically bully and insult him to a point where he is extremely upset. Only Esmeralda is kind to him out of the entire Gypsy crowd. There song was odd too, not that it was bad, it was fairly entertaining but maybe it was just me but I found something about it quite uncomfortable and almost slightly off, like it was implying they were quite nefarious. Not the most important aspect of the film but certainly worth mentioning.

 

I’m never really a fan of the comic relief in these kind of films and here was no exception. They weren’t the worst comic relief I’ve ever seen, but in a darker film such as this they did feel more out of place. I never find these characters funny and while they weren’t so obnoxious that they spoilt the movie I did still find them irritating. I did enjoy them more when they appeared to be imaginary, it made sense for Quasimodo’s character to make imaginary friends but you see them in the final battle at the end fighting the guards and you realise they just come to life. They could be worse but they are a weaker aspect of the film.

 

The film is however grand in scale. The animation particularly Notre Dame itself was fantastic and the film just appeared huge. On top of this the Choir suits the film brilliantly as it gets across the feeling and tone of the film as well as simply sounding great. It was one of Disney’s more controversial and risky films but at the same time it’s one I think they did an excellent job with and one that I can see why they wanted to make this instead of just another fairy tale. As I said earlier it’s not perfect, it’s not that faithful to the novel. It is however and incredibly interesting adaptation, a deep and intriguing main character and villain with in depth motivation and personality and it is definitely worth a watch. If you haven’t seen it then I really advise you do, it really is worth your time.

My Thoughts on Jeremy Clarkson's Suspension

My Thoughts on Jeremy Clarkson’s Suspension

Let’s face it, this was almost certainly going to happen at some point. Jeremy Clarkson always has and always been a controversial figure. He is very much a marmite figure, you either love or hate his antics. Honestly I laughed when I first hear this news because it was so typical of Mr. Clarkson. All this from the presenter of what started out in his words as a pokey motoring show, Jeremy Clarkson is very much a household name. Finally all the controversy has caught up with him. Here’s my spin on it.

Clarkson and the producer he apparently punched

 

I’ll start of by saying I am a fan of Top Gear and Jeremy Clarkson, I think he’s really funny. However I will be as objective as possible for this discussion and for what it’s worth I can perfectly understand why people hate him. However Jeremy Clarkson quite clearly does not take himself seriously, at least on television. He is very sarcastic and he is very much a laugh at everything kind of person. He does walk a tightrope a times but personally I don’t think he’s ever crossed a line. A lot of his controversial moments are taken way out of context. Some previous examples include his N word incident, when he said strikers should be shot on The One Show and the recent trouble in Argentina.

 

The easiest to dispel is his appearance on The One Show. Yes he said strikers in the public sector should be shot. Go online and it will talk about how awful it is. He started off by saying how fantastic all the strikes were because London was empty. He followed this up by saying he has to balance it up because it’s the BBC so they should all be shot in front of their families. He was obviously being sarcastic in his comments, he doesn’t actually think public sector workers should be shot. He has his own views and made them clear. I watched this at the time and I thought it was pretty funny. He was joking in his exaggeration, but people were offended so he apologised.

 

The N word. I hate this word, it’s a disgusting and degrading term and a reminder of the monstrosity that is racism. I may be a fan of Clarkson but if he had been racist then I would have been appalled. When I was first alerted to this incident I was but then I saw the clip. He does not say that word. The rhyme is very common, I remember hearing and using it all the time when I was younger although the way I was taught it had the N word replaced with Tigger from Whinnie the Pooh. Clarkson starts the rhyme but mumbles through the middle and does not use that word. He makes strange humming noises as filler but he does not use that word. The original rhyme uses that awful word but Clarkson, so I think the controversy here is ridiculous. I don’t see how you could take offense in someone humming in place of using a racist word, that would be like being offended at the beeping sound used to censor a swear word.

 

Finally Argentina. I remember watching the Christmas episodes and being utterly shocked at what I was seeing. I knew there was still some tension out there but I didn’t realise it was to that degree. The attacks were savage and it’s a miracle that no one was seriously hurt, or worse. The question is did Clarkson have anything behind that number plate. I doubt it. He has always apologised for his controversial moments, even if he didn’t believe he was wrong. He maintains his innocence here and I don’t see any reason to accuse him of lying, there’s no proof. Plus it’s not like he alone was responsible for that car. The show’s producers and cameramen and fellow hosts had seen it and didn’t bat an eyelid. The BBC surely would’ve stopped him if he had gone to the trouble to get a personalised number plate to offend Argentina. I think it was an honest mistake.

 

Of course there are plenty of things I haven’t mentioned from him saying the BBC is obsessed with hiring Black Muslim lesbians to his ordeal with Mexico but I still don’t think he has overstepped the line. Jeremy Clarkson speaks his mind, but he does not intend for any of us to take him seriously. It’s easy to remember people poke a lot of fun at him, as well as him at himself. His humour is not for everyone but I don’t think he is trying to offend anyone.

 

So what about his most recent incident. All the BBC have said is because of a fracas with a producer. For those of you (Such as myself) who don’t know what Fracas means, it is a noisy disturbance or quarrel. However he has also been said to have punched producer. Not much has been said. What confuses me is he was apparently on his last chance after the N word incident according to the BBC. If he really did punch a producer then why haven’t they sacked him? They have come out saying no one man is bigger than the club. If it’s that serious then according to their own words he should have been sacked. However he is only suspended.

 

Maybe they need to investigate further, although I can’t see how much needs to be looked into for someone punching someone else. Fellow Top Gear presenter James May was spoken to Outside his house and he said it’s not that serious. Obviously he won’t say too much as he doesn’t want to get himself or his mate into trouble but surely there is some truth in this. Otherwise he would’ve said he didn’t know anything.

 

Top Gear makes the BBC a colossal amount of money. The show is popular worldwide and in its current format would not work without Clarkson. He is arguably the most important presenter on the show, he is certainly the face of the show. Whenever there’s an advertisement he’s in the centre. Plus they would lose a large number of fans if he wasn’t present. If they want Top Gear to continue being a success they cannot afford to sack him.

 

This will likely be a temporary thing. It is a shame that the Top Gear is not on this Sunday or if I’, no mistaken the week after but I imagine it’ll be back soon. A lot of people have come out in support of Clarkson and I can’t see the BBC cutting him loose. It would not be a smart move to sack him, for the BBC or the fans of Top Gear. What we all need to remember is Jeremy Clarkson is a massive idiot, but that’s part of his TV persona. We all know someone who acts like a bit of a tool, doesn’t make them a bad person. I enjoy him on TV but I don’t take him seriously at all. Yes he walks a fine line sometimes but let’s face it, what he does would be a lot more boring if he didn’t. So don’t over react, instead enjoy him if you like him, ignore him if you don’t and hopefully soon back on BBC 2 during Sunday nights will be the greatest car show … IN THE WORLD!

 

Teletubby Battle Royale - Who Would Win

Teletubby Battle Royale - Who Would Win

They don’t make children’s television like they used to. Teletubbies was a surreal experience full of strange noise and bright colours. It won a Bafta in 1998 and in total 365 episodes were made, coincidently one for each day of the year. Despite finishing over 10 years ago it still has a cult following to this day, probably due to its seemingly psychedelic quality. It was very successful and something someone around my age will surely remember.

 

 On the outside these strange walking television thing seem playful and innocent. They make strange noises and fall over a lot. Eve noticed how little life there is in Teletubby land. The Teletubbies killed everything. What else could it be? All these years the truth about their bloodlust had been hidden away. Until today. Today the residents of Teletubby land let out their violent nature to see who is the deadliest of them all. Today the teletubbes fight to see who would win a Teletubby battle royale.

 

This battle will take place in the far away hills, Teletubby land. There will be no outside assistance and there will be no temporary alliances. Each Teletubby will be allowed to use their signature item however. I’ll start by analysing each Teletubby individually so let’s start with Tinky Winky.

 

Tinky Winky is the largest and oldest Teletubby. He is purple and has a triangular antenna. Of all the Teletubbies Tinky Winky has had the most controversy as people have speculated for years about his sexuality. He was a male Teletubby but he has a fabulous red handbag and was coloured purple. He also has a triangular antenna similar to the gay pride symbol.

 

Before carrying on about his violent tendencies I’d like to point out how ridiculous this all is. One of the distributor of the show responded to all this by saying and I quote He’s not Gay, he’s not straight he’s just a character in a children’s series. Talk about looking into fictional characters too much. Now onto his murder methods.

 

Tinky Winky’s size could be a huge factor. Being the largest you would expect him to be the most physically powerful and in a one on one scrap he should be able to take out the other Teletubbies in a battle of strength. However in a four way battle this is an unlikely situation so while his strength would help, it wouldn’t be a deciding factor. It could be if he was one of the last 2 left though. However there is a catch. Being the largest will probably make Tinky Winky the least agile of the bunch and this could be a weakness to exploit.

 

Tink Winky’s triangular antenna would not give him any advantage in a battle situation. However his handbag seems like a very capable weapon. However not only is it powerful, it’s also unpredictable and adaptable to different situations.

 

In a situation with all the Teletubbies it could be used as a swinging weapon. Tinnky Winky could hold the bag by the strap and try to hit the others with it. Remember this strength would aid this attack. It could also be an extremely dangerous one on one weapon, used to strangle the other Teletubbies with its strap. Tinky Winky has the strength to pull this off.

 

There’s more though. Tinky Winky could also store weapons in the bag. He could easily fit some pepper spray for stunning his opponents or a knife to shank the other Teletubbies. There is however no proof of him being in possession of such weapons. What he could have however is a gun.

There was a reported incident of a Tinky Winky toy that reportedly said I got a Gun! Whether this is true or not will probably remain a mystery but it is possible for him to carry a small handgun in that bag. Such a weapon could be deadly, however it seems unlikely Tinky Winky would have a good aim considering how clumsy all the Teletubbies are in the show. However it certainly is a huge advantage for Tinky Winky and he is a force to be reckoned with.

 

Dipsy is the second largest TellyTubby. He is green, has a noticeably darker complexion and has a long straight antenna. Dipsy is more stubborn than the other Teletubbies and had been known to go against the group decision. I once saw him described on a poster as the cool Teletubby. This impies he would be most confident. His signature item is a hat.

 

Being second largest, Dipsy would likely be the second strongest. He would also be more agile than Tinky Winky he is more of an all-rounder. However he would still be able to hold his own in a battle of strength, certainly against Laa-Laa and Po. His extra agility could give him the edge against Tinky Winky too although a battle would be unlikely to play out where Dipsy could battle each opponent one on one.

 

Dipsy probably has the most useful Antenna. It is long and could probably be sharpened into a stabbing weapon. While a desperate attack Dipsy could have a powerful, all be it risky head-butting attack. His Antenna could also be used to swipe Tinky Winky’s handbag. He could possibly hook the strap and with this extra weaponry, he would be a true powerhouse.

 

Dipsy’s hat may seem useless at first but when you look more closely you see there is a very useful application. Dipsy could smother an opponent to death with his hat. If left one on one or in a vulnerable position Dipsy could capitalise and strike. However this would be a lengthy kill so Dipsy would have to be smart.

Dipsy Scouts the Competition

 

Dipsy however is stubborn and cool. While the confidence could be good, more likely it would be his downfall. He may try to take on all the other Teletubbies at once, making him an easy kill. There’smore. Being stubborn he would be unlikely to retreat even if it would benefit him in the battle.

 

Dipsy is a powerful man but his stubborn nature and self-confidence could lead to his downfall. However if he can keep his personality traits in check he could be a favourite to win here.

 

Laa-Laa is the thid largest TellyTubby. She is yellow and has a curly antenna. Laa-Laa is apparently the nicest and kindest TeleTubby, a trait that is not of benefit at all. Her signature item is a ball.

 

Laa-Laa is not as strong as Dipsy but she is more Agile. She is also and all-rounder meaning she has the traits to take on each TellyTubby individually.

 

Laa-Laa seems like a weak link here. Her antenna is useless and she is unlikely to be as ruthless as the other Teletubies due to having a kinder nature. Her ball could make a good defensive item. It is big enough to cover her whole body. However it wouldn’t cause any damage in an attack. Having less strength she seems weaker in hand to hand combat too. Sorry Laa-Laa you haven’t got much of a chance here.

 

Finally we have Po. Po is the youngest and smallest Teletubby. She has a circular antenna on a small stick, similar to a buble wand. She is Cantonese and according to the show’s creators bilingual and her signature item is a scooter.

Being the smallest Po would be the weakest physically but also most agile. She has the speed to not only fight but also retreat where appropriate and she would likely be the stealthiest Teletubby. She seems the best suited to taking advantage of the hills of Teletubby land. It may be difficult for the larger Teletubbies to land a single blow on her.

 

However being the youngest she would likely scare easier. A gun pointed at her face may scare her and hinder her fighting ability. Also being small and young she would be easier to kill. It would be far easier to strangle or smother her to death meaning if she failed to dodge it would likely be game over.

 

Po’s antenna is also useless but her scooter is a highly useful item. Not only could she travel at great speeds, far greater than her opponents but she could use it as a striking weapon before running over their necks as they lay on the floor unconscious. This could be the most gruesome attack possible and Po could pull it off relatively easily. Po while young could be a strong contender here.

 

So who would win here? Honestly it doesn’t matter. Anyone who has seen Teletubbies will know that none of them will survive. At the end of episodes sometimes there would be a ‘magical event’ to entertain the Teletubbies. One of them was so controversial it is banned from being shown on both television and VHS/DVD today. It involved a lion and more crucially a bear.

 

This sketch was extremely scary for a small child. Even watching it now it is slightly creepy. The bear’s eyes were uncanny, the arms appeared to move by themselves. The lion wasn’t a problem but the chase scenes where the lion chases the bear would horrify young children. The bear would be hiding in the background, only visible to the audience. It would poke out from behind a tree, its tongue would swirl and it would make a strange noise. Even the music and voices themselves were scary, like any good horror the music added to the atmosphere. The dialogue was ridiculous for a child, including I’m the Bear and I’m coming.

 

In this battle royale no Teletubby would survive. The bear as we’ve seen is fast enough to easily escape the lion. It is far faster than any Tellytubby. That’s if the Teletibbies even spot the Bear. It is only seen in the show when it’s taunting the lion. It is a master of stealth and deceit. The Bear could easily hide with the Teletubbies only seeing it when it’s too late. The Bear would grab them one by one, pulling them behind a tree and killing them in an unthinkably horrible way. Imagine being the last Teletubby alive. You’d be paralysed with fear, knowing there is no escape.

 

So a Teletubby battle royale would be pointless. The Teletubbies shouldn’t be fighting, they should be working together to try to escape. Bu they never will. The bear is coming and he will get them. He uses fear tactics along with stealth and blistering speed. Be very afraid. The winner is the Bear.