At the Animaniacs Live concert I went to like a month and half ago, Rob and Randy were singing LA Dot and when It was the part when Yakko said “excuse me Dot, but…” and got interrupted , Rob instead said “um Dot, sweetie”
So as far as I’m concerned it’s canon that Yakko calls his little sister “sweetie” and you can pry that from my cold dead hands.
At the Animaniacs Live concert I went to like a month and half ago, Rob and Randy were singing LA Dot and when It was the part when Yakko said “excuse me Dot, but…” and got interrupted , Rob instead said “um Dot, sweetie”
So as far as I’m concerned it’s canon that Yakko calls his little sister “sweetie” and you can pry that from my cold dead hands.
Okay but what I wanna know is what kind of sciencey, black magic witchcraft could they have possibly used to keep in three children who can pull mallets and dynamite out of their pants and run through walls????
Also ignore the terrible quality of this pic
Okay but what I wanna know is what kind of sciencey, black magic witchcraft could they have possibly used to keep in three children who can pull mallets and dynamite out of their pants and run through walls????
Also ignore the terrible quality of this pic
because this is my idea of fun XD
Disclaimer before I begin:
A few days ago, I made a post asking if Tiny Toon Adventures and Animaniacs take place in the same universe and if we could apply the logic of one show to the other. Most of the notes of this post were likes, which given my post was in the form of a question, doesn’t really tell me people’s thoughts on the subject. (I assumed anyone who liked it either agreed with me or was liking it because they wanted to know the answer too and that was their way of saving the post to check other people’s responses later (I’ve done that)) I did get one reply from @viridianvenus that said:
i always thought the canon was that everyone was actors who were well aware that they were on a tv show. Therefore you can never really tell what’s ‘real’ and what was just part of their show
Which is a good point and even with my two interpretations of this show, (see here) they both incorporate this idea in some way shape or form.
So, with that being said, I would like to clarify beforehand which interpretation/logic I am applying to is the first one I talk about in the post above. And if you don’t want to read it, I’ll sum it up real quick: the logic is that it’s in the same universe as Who Framed Roger Rabbit and the idea that toons come to life and are actors for their cartoons applies to both, and because of this, the idea that the Warner Siblings were locked up in the water tower for 60ish years is canon. It’s also important to note that like I suggested above, this theory involves the idea that Tiny Toons takes place in this universe as well, and the logic of that show also applies to Animaniacs.
So, keep this in mind as you read this theory. If you agree with the logic this theory stands on, I hope I blow your mind! If you don’t agree with this logic, then this entire theory is a moot point, but hey, maybe you’ll still enjoy it!
Anyway…
I’ve been going through the episodes of Animaniacs that give us insights into the Warner siblings’ past, (wanting to create a timeline for them, but that’s a whole other thing) and of course I can’t do that without watching their 65th-anniversary special. While watching that episode, I came across a line that I previously didn’t bat an eye about, but all the sudden seems a little suspicious.
The line in question came up while various characters were giving testimonies about the Warners, specifically talking about when the kids got locked up in the water tower. The line came from Plotz: “They’d spend the rest of their lives in that tower…alone!” Perhaps I’m simply reading too much into this, but the wording of “the rest of their lives” seems to imply the studio assumed the Warners’ lives would eventually end. And given everything we know about toons in this universe (regardless of whether or not you think it is connected to WFRR and TTA) the concept of them dying seems to be something next to impossible, especially since many toons we see haven’t aged since they first came to life. Then I remembered the logic of Tiny Toons, that toons will age if people stop watching and laughing at their cartoons.
And then suddenly I remembered a little line from the News Reel opening. “The Warners’ films, which made absolutely no sense, were locked away in the studio vault, never to be released”
This happened at the same time the Warners themselves were locked up, so there would have been no way for them to get anyone to laugh at them.
Combine this with the suspiciously morbid line of “They’d spend the rest of their lives in that tower…” and I have come to the unsettling conclusion/theory that the studio basically tried to kill the Warners by forcing them to age.
Now I do have some ideas on what the opposing arguments will be to this and rebuttals to some of them, so let’s cover those:
Opposing Argument: Slappy has stated many times that no one dies in cartoons (and let’s be honest, she’s the cartoon expert, she would know), so while toons may age from people not watching their cartoons, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will ever die from aging.
My thoughts: An excellent point. It’s certainly hard to suggest the idea that Slappy doesn’t know the cold hard facts about cartoons and the logic in them, but I do have a rebuttal to this,
My rebuttal: There is one episode in which Slappy attends a funeral for Walter Wolf, and yes, I am aware Walter was faking to get revenge on Slappy, but the important take away from that episode was the number of people who attended his funeral. There was a large group of people who did genuinely seem to believe that Walter did die. This doesn’t necessarily prove that toons can die from old age, I admit, but it could suggest that. However, it could also suggest that they just didn’t know if toons could die from aging yet. Perhaps it was unheard of until Walter “died”, and they all just went, “oh, I guess toons can die from old age” which to me says that they at least understand it’s a possibility, even if it hadn’t happened yet. If it was a known fact that toons couldn’t die from aging, no one would have attended his funeral, they all would have known he was faking. I would even dare to argue that in this episode, even Slappy believed that Walter was dead until she saw him up and moving (she just didn’t really care that he was dead because ya know, it’s Slappy), but the rest of you might disagree with me there. Either way, no matter how you look at it, it seems that the general population at least acknowledges that toons dying from old age is a possibility.
Opposing argument to my rebuttal: But, as viridianvenus stated, it’s a show within a show, so there’s no real way to tell what’s real and what’s part of the show, this is especially true when dealing with other cast members’ cartoons.
My thoughts: Good point, no rebuttal to that one.
Opposing Argument: Even if it’s true that toons can age from not having people watch their cartoons, that doesn’t mean the studio actually knew that. If toons started becoming a species as animation was invented, then at the time the Warners and their cartoons were locked away, there wouldn’t be any toons that would have aged enough, if at all, to have proven that this is how aging works for toons. Even if this was a known fact at this point, that doesn’t mean it was a well-known fact. It may have been known by some, but not necessarily known by the studio.
My thoughts: These are all very good points, and I have no rebuttal for this one.
Opposing argument: Even if it was a well-known fact that toons aged by having their cartoons not be watched, and even if toons can die from aging, that does not mean that the studio’s intent was to kill the Warners. Because even if the aging could have been proven by the mid-1930s, there wouldn’t have been enough time to prove that toons could die from aging and perhaps this is something they didn’t learn until later.
My thoughts: A very good point indeed, I have no rebuttal, but I do have a thought I would like to add to this idea: this could potentially explain why they let the Warners out to do cartoons every once in a while, like with their wartime cartoon and their being lent out to competing studios. Perhaps the studio discovered that toons could die from not having their cartoons watched, and the studio realized what they could have been unintentionally doing to the Warners and decided to give them just enough cartoons to keep them alive.
And the thing about these arguments I’ve thought of, while they do offer a potentially likely alternative, they dont seem to actually debunk the theory…
Another thing: Even if the studio wasn’t trying to actually kill the Warner kids through aging, that doesn’t negate the fact that this certainly was something that could have happened to them.
There’re probably more arguments against this theory, but I couldn’t think of them, so it’s up to you guys to let me know what you find or remember that debunks it!
Now if it is true, I have two questions:
1. How is it that despite these efforts, the Warners seemed to have not aged a day? Yes, there are the cartoons the studio let them do while they were out of the tower, but would those have been enough to keep them young for several decades until the next batch of cartoons? Or were there other cartoons the studio let them do that we never got to see? Or was it just them having to be let out every few years so the tower could be fumigated enough to get enough laughs for them to stay young. Or did they perhaps actually age, while in the tower, and then when they got released and got more people laughing at them, reverted back to their child states, and maybe that’s why they are able to make so many adult jokes, because there were periods of time when they were adults.
2. Do you think they ever caught onto this? Do you think they ever connected these dots and went “holy crap this studio is trying to kill us!”?
Yes, I know I’m probably just over analyzing and over thinking a silly cartoon that’s meant for nothing but to make its audience smile, but ya know what? Dark conspiracy theories make me smile so it’s still doing its job!
because this is my idea of fun XD
Disclaimer before I begin:
A few days ago, I made a post asking if Tiny Toon Adventures and Animaniacs take place in the same universe and if we could apply the logic of one show to the other. Most of the notes of this post were likes, which given my post was in the form of a question, doesn’t really tell me people’s thoughts on the subject. (I assumed anyone who liked it either agreed with me or was liking it because they wanted to know the answer too and that was their way of saving the post to check other people’s responses later (I’ve done that)) I did get one reply from @viridianvenus that said:
i always thought the canon was that everyone was actors who were well aware that they were on a tv show. Therefore you can never really tell what’s ‘real’ and what was just part of their show
Which is a good point and even with my two interpretations of this show, (see here) they both incorporate this idea in some way shape or form.
So, with that being said, I would like to clarify beforehand which interpretation/logic I am applying to is the first one I talk about in the post above. And if you don’t want to read it, I’ll sum it up real quick: the logic is that it’s in the same universe as Who Framed Roger Rabbit and the idea that toons come to life and are actors for their cartoons applies to both, and because of this, the idea that the Warner Siblings were locked up in the water tower for 60ish years is canon. It’s also important to note that like I suggested above, this theory involves the idea that Tiny Toons takes place in this universe as well, and the logic of that show also applies to Animaniacs.
So, keep this in mind as you read this theory. If you agree with the logic this theory stands on, I hope I blow your mind! If you don’t agree with this logic, then this entire theory is a moot point, but hey, maybe you’ll still enjoy it!
Anyway…
I’ve been going through the episodes of Animaniacs that give us insights into the Warner siblings’ past, (wanting to create a timeline for them, but that’s a whole other thing) and of course I can’t do that without watching their 65th-anniversary special. While watching that episode, I came across a line that I previously didn’t bat an eye about, but all the sudden seems a little suspicious.
The line in question came up while various characters were giving testimonies about the Warners, specifically talking about when the kids got locked up in the water tower. The line came from Plotz: “They’d spend the rest of their lives in that tower…alone!” Perhaps I’m simply reading too much into this, but the wording of “the rest of their lives” seems to imply the studio assumed the Warners’ lives would eventually end. And given everything we know about toons in this universe (regardless of whether or not you think it is connected to WFRR and TTA) the concept of them dying seems to be something next to impossible, especially since many toons we see haven’t aged since they first came to life. Then I remembered the logic of Tiny Toons, that toons will age if people stop watching and laughing at their cartoons.
And then suddenly I remembered a little line from the News Reel opening. “The Warners’ films, which made absolutely no sense, were locked away in the studio vault, never to be released”
This happened at the same time the Warners themselves were locked up, so there would have been no way for them to get anyone to laugh at them.
Combine this with the suspiciously morbid line of “They’d spend the rest of their lives in that tower…” and I have come to the unsettling conclusion/theory that the studio basically tried to kill the Warners by forcing them to age.
Now I do have some ideas on what the opposing arguments will be to this and rebuttals to some of them, so let’s cover those:
Opposing Argument: Slappy has stated many times that no one dies in cartoons (and let’s be honest, she’s the cartoon expert, she would know), so while toons may age from people not watching their cartoons, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will ever die from aging.
My thoughts: An excellent point. It’s certainly hard to suggest the idea that Slappy doesn’t know the cold hard facts about cartoons and the logic in them, but I do have a rebuttal to this,
My rebuttal: There is one episode in which Slappy attends a funeral for Walter Wolf, and yes, I am aware Walter was faking to get revenge on Slappy, but the important take away from that episode was the number of people who attended his funeral. There was a large group of people who did genuinely seem to believe that Walter did die. This doesn’t necessarily prove that toons can die from old age, I admit, but it could suggest that. However, it could also suggest that they just didn’t know if toons could die from aging yet. Perhaps it was unheard of until Walter “died”, and they all just went, “oh, I guess toons can die from old age” which to me says that they at least understand it’s a possibility, even if it hadn’t happened yet. If it was a known fact that toons couldn’t die from aging, no one would have attended his funeral, they all would have known he was faking. I would even dare to argue that in this episode, even Slappy believed that Walter was dead until she saw him up and moving (she just didn’t really care that he was dead because ya know, it’s Slappy), but the rest of you might disagree with me there. Either way, no matter how you look at it, it seems that the general population at least acknowledges that toons dying from old age is a possibility.
Opposing argument to my rebuttal: But, as viridianvenus stated, it’s a show within a show, so there’s no real way to tell what’s real and what’s part of the show, this is especially true when dealing with other cast members’ cartoons.
My thoughts: Good point, no rebuttal to that one.
Opposing Argument: Even if it’s true that toons can age from not having people watch their cartoons, that doesn’t mean the studio actually knew that. If toons started becoming a species as animation was invented, then at the time the Warners and their cartoons were locked away, there wouldn’t be any toons that would have aged enough, if at all, to have proven that this is how aging works for toons. Even if this was a known fact at this point, that doesn’t mean it was a well-known fact. It may have been known by some, but not necessarily known by the studio.
My thoughts: These are all very good points, and I have no rebuttal for this one.
Opposing argument: Even if it was a well-known fact that toons aged by having their cartoons not be watched, and even if toons can die from aging, that does not mean that the studio’s intent was to kill the Warners. Because even if the aging could have been proven by the mid-1930s, there wouldn’t have been enough time to prove that toons could die from aging and perhaps this is something they didn’t learn until later.
My thoughts: A very good point indeed, I have no rebuttal, but I do have a thought I would like to add to this idea: this could potentially explain why they let the Warners out to do cartoons every once in a while, like with their wartime cartoon and their being lent out to competing studios. Perhaps the studio discovered that toons could die from not having their cartoons watched, and the studio realized what they could have been unintentionally doing to the Warners and decided to give them just enough cartoons to keep them alive.
And the thing about these arguments I’ve thought of, while they do offer a potentially likely alternative, they dont seem to actually debunk the theory…
Another thing: Even if the studio wasn’t trying to actually kill the Warner kids through aging, that doesn’t negate the fact that this certainly was something that could have happened to them.
There’re probably more arguments against this theory, but I couldn’t think of them, so it’s up to you guys to let me know what you find or remember that debunks it!
Now if it is true, I have two questions:
1. How is it that despite these efforts, the Warners seemed to have not aged a day? Yes, there are the cartoons the studio let them do while they were out of the tower, but would those have been enough to keep them young for several decades until the next batch of cartoons? Or were there other cartoons the studio let them do that we never got to see? Or was it just them having to be let out every few years so the tower could be fumigated enough to get enough laughs for them to stay young. Or did they perhaps actually age, while in the tower, and then when they got released and got more people laughing at them, reverted back to their child states, and maybe that’s why they are able to make so many adult jokes, because there were periods of time when they were adults.
2. Do you think they ever caught onto this? Do you think they ever connected these dots and went “holy crap this studio is trying to kill us!”?
Yes, I know I’m probably just over analyzing and over thinking a silly cartoon that’s meant for nothing but to make its audience smile, but ya know what? Dark conspiracy theories make me smile so it’s still doing its job!
Does anyone else have multiple interpretations of Animaniacs that you just switch through based on your fanfic/ headcanon/ etc needs?
Like I have one interpretation that it takes place in the same universe as Who Framed Roger Rabbit and its a world where cartoon characters come to life when they are drawn and are essentially immortal beings, and that Yakko, Wakko and Dot really were created in the 1930s ish and got locked in the tower for sixty years, and then when they came out they started doing the show Animaniacs, (so basically Animaniacs is a show within a show) and that every episode that takes place on the lot is Yakko, Wakko and Dot living their lives, while cartoons that take place in less realistic locations (like the King Yakko episode and the movie) are just the cartoons they filmed for “Animaniacs”
And I plan on using this for a fanfic that requires this logic for it to even work.
But then I have another interpretation that it’s still a show within a show, but instead of being immortal beings who magically came to life they are three kids who were born normally and age normally and the entire series are the cartoons they filmed (regardless of location or situation) and with this scenario my age headcanons are that they started out with Yakko at age 12, Wakko at age 9 and Dot at age 8, and they ended with Yakko being 14, Wakko being 11 and Dot being 10, and then the movie Yakko’s 15, Wakko’s 12 and Dot’s 11
And I use this version when I’m thinking about an oc (who I currently have no plans on sharing with you all, sorry) because I like the idea of her growing up with the Warners better than the idea that they all stay young forever
Does anyone else do this? What is/are your interpretation(s) of this show? I’d love to hear what others think
Does anyone else have multiple interpretations of Animaniacs that you just switch through based on your fanfic/ headcanon/ etc needs?
Like I have one interpretation that it takes place in the same universe as Who Framed Roger Rabbit and its a world where cartoon characters come to life when they are drawn and are essentially immortal beings, and that Yakko, Wakko and Dot really were created in the 1930s ish and got locked in the tower for sixty years, and then when they came out they started doing the show Animaniacs, (so basically Animaniacs is a show within a show) and that every episode that takes place on the lot is Yakko, Wakko and Dot living their lives, while cartoons that take place in less realistic locations (like the King Yakko episode and the movie) are just the cartoons they filmed for “Animaniacs”
And I plan on using this for a fanfic that requires this logic for it to even work.
But then I have another interpretation that it’s still a show within a show, but instead of being immortal beings who magically came to life they are three kids who were born normally and age normally and the entire series are the cartoons they filmed (regardless of location or situation) and with this scenario my age headcanons are that they started out with Yakko at age 12, Wakko at age 9 and Dot at age 8, and they ended with Yakko being 14, Wakko being 11 and Dot being 10, and then the movie Yakko’s 15, Wakko’s 12 and Dot’s 11
And I use this version when I’m thinking about an oc (who I currently have no plans on sharing with you all, sorry) because I like the idea of her growing up with the Warners better than the idea that they all stay young forever
Does anyone else do this? What is/are your interpretation(s) of this show? I’d love to hear what others think
What are all the episodes that tell us about the Warners’ past? I know the 65th anniversary special one, and the Googily Goop one shows us one of the cartoons they did in the past, and there’s one episode where Plotz loans then out to other studios, but I can’t remember the title of that episode. What is the name of that one and are there any others?
What are all the episodes that tell us about the Warners’ past? I know the 65th anniversary special one, and the Googily Goop one shows us one of the cartoons they did in the past, and there’s one episode where Plotz loans then out to other studios, but I can’t remember the title of that episode. What is the name of that one and are there any others?
Gravity Falls and Other Related Stuff 