Foodchain Irony in Inchworm?

Saironi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
173
Reaction score
1
Did anyone think the Inchworm sketch was ironic?

Here is an insectivorial animal (first it was a frog, then a lizard) sitting on a wall and minding his own bussiness when a little worm taps him and gets eaten. After it happens again, the worm turns out to be the nose a monster who is either hungry himself and eats the first muppet, or just eats him for the sake of eating something (this is up for debate).

The way I see it is that the insectivore lets his own confidence in his superiority and in the end bites the nose of a monster, who apparently stayed in hiding waiting for a chance to catch his prey. I suppose I am saying it is similar to a food chain.
 

Barry Lee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2003
Messages
2,565
Reaction score
21
What do you mean a frog? Kermit wasn't a frog when the sketch was performed.
 

Giar Fraggle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
331
Reaction score
0
Yes, it was ironic--that's why it was so funny.

(Besides the fact that it's funny when a puppet eats another puppet.)
 

muppetsforlife

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
373
Reaction score
4
That scene was kind of disturbing for me to watch Kermit getting eaten. Yes I Know that he wasn't yet the kermit that we know today. But yet it was just strange to see that.
 
Top