Disclaimer: This article is based on actual news from the real world – honestly! However, it has been sprinkled with a healthy dose of satire.
LONDON — StudioCanal has filed a High Court lawsuit over Spitting Image’s “Pablo Esco-Bear” sketch, alleging it “gravely undermines the wholesome reputation of Paddington.” In related news, Britain confirms this is the dumbest sentence ever read aloud in a London courtroom.
A deranged-looking hairy thing sitting next to Paddington Esco-Bear. (Avalon Promotions)
In the skit, the beloved Peruvian bear reinvented as “Pablo Esco-Bear,” interviews Elon Musk, advertises assault rifles and robotic sex dolls, and co-hosts a podcast with a puppet Prince Harry who opens the show by declaring, “I have no discernible talent.”
Spitting Image’s legal team countered by demanding StudioCanal point out one single thing in the skit that isn’t the objective truth. “We’ll wait,” they said in the filing. They are still waiting. A spokesperson for Buckingham Palace countered that while it’s true he may have no talent, Harry is “at least above average” at making documentaries about how hard it is being famous.
StudioCanal’s lawyers argue the parody infringes on copyright by using the likeness of Paddington to promote what they call “illicit bear-based commerce,” which has been illegal in England since the reign of Edward II, a precedent you’ll deeply regret Googling at work or in front of children.
Meanwhile, Netflix reportedly expressed interest in developing Paddington: Blood on the Tracks, described as a gritty reboot where “marmalade is slang for literally everything.”
Spitting Image has refused to back down. “We believe in the sacred British right to mock fictional animals,” said co-creator Al Murray. “If we can’t ridicule a bear doing rails off a train ticket, then the terrorists have indeed won.”
An unnamed crew member admitted they initially wanted to parody Winnie the Pooh, but “the legal team said Disney would eat our faces,” and also mentioned “some problems with China,” which they failed to elaborate on out of fear of being Black Mirrored.
His snout is white, but that's probably just fur color, not… for other reasons. (Courtesy of Sony)
The High Court has yet to rule, but legal analysts predict it will come down to whether a fictional bear can suffer reputational harm, or if the cow left the barn already after Paddington 2.
Public reaction has been fierce. Children’s advocates decried the parody, while adult fans quietly Googled “Pablo Esco-Bear T-shirt Etsy.” One London shop has already started selling “Free Paddington” mugs, which, according to police, may contain actual cocaine residue, which customers anxiously insist is just powdered sugar from the “Peruvian doughnuts.” And this is how new slang terms for cocaine are born.
Tourism officials in Peru released a statement reading: “We do not condone the actions of any talking bear. However, we appreciate the publicity. Come to Peru, We Have The Cocaine.”
StudioCanal and Spitting Image declined further comment, but sources say both parties are considering an out-of-court settlement involving a joint ad campaign for Paddington-branded nose tissues and a new special: “Paddington 4: Blow in the Wind.” Pornhub also expressed interest in the collaboration, but for “entirely different reasons”.
This story is based on fully factual news, but if we got it wrong, blame these guys, we’re just here to make it funny.
