|
Post by Fatal hilarity on Apr 17, 2009 21:57:53 GMT -5
The only reason I bought a "bootleg" (it's really just unofficial) is because I had no other choice. The show stopped playing on TV years ago, and Disney hasn't put anything out yet. I would buy an official one, if it existed. I never buy bootlegs of anything that's available legally. If if isn't available legally, then they lose a customer! ...I don't expect anyone to agree with me. I do what I have to do to find these things, because I like them, I'm always searching for knowledge and inspiration, and I want to contribute to pop culture... Did I just act all defensive...? Whatever...
It's available on Amazon and at Barnes and Noble. I wouldn't know about Wal-Mart, 'cause I don't support it...
I'll mention some other cartoons when I return from vacation...
|
|
|
Post by psychoangel51402 on Apr 18, 2009 12:43:37 GMT -5
oh, i wasn't accusing! sorry. I actually tried to get ahold of bootleg DVDs before... what is every other person's deal with Wal*Mart? I don't get it...half the ppl i know couldn't live without it, and the other half think it's evil or something... sweeeeeet...that means it's probably on YouTube...
|
|
|
Post by Fatal hilarity on Apr 18, 2009 21:37:53 GMT -5
The trouble with Wal-Mart is that their employees lack a lot of benefits that most unions would want. They may be cheap, but if those grocery store protests from a couple of years ago were any indication, they're not the greatest. That's all I can really tell you, unfortunately... My family gets most of our groceries from Costco, anyway.
Actually, WB took down all of the Tiny Toons videos off of YouTube, if that's what you're referring to.
Here are some cartoons I forgot to mention: "Do Toons Dream of Animated Sheep?" from Bonkers- this one suggests that toons get gaping holes in their bodies when their dreams are interrupted and left unfinished. Supposedly it's like the last page of a mystery novel- you just gotta know how it ends. ...Yeah, I don't get it, either. "Cartoon Cornered" from Bonkers- this one explores the filming process of a cartoon, with a set in a soundstage and all. It shows that the soundstage can be bigger on the inside, and that a toon can direct a cartoon! It also supports my theory that Disney bought Wackytoons, Bonkers' old studio. The Bugs Bunny short "What's Up, Doc?"- this explores Bugs' early career and rise to stardom, starting out with cheesy vaudeville acts, singing in a Broadway chorus, a wiseguy/dumb guy routine with Elmer Fudd, and finally the Bugs we all know and love.
I've been thinking... you know those old silent cartoons with Koko the Clown, "Out of the Inkwell"? The concept that cartoons are born on the drawing board still persists to this day, but the idea that they act out the entire cartoon on it has died. Everyone here would know about the classic "Duck Amuck", with Daffy Duck being tormented by Bugs on the drawing board. Walt Disney's TV specials depict their characters as being tiny, which is an extension of that concept. So... since we all consider WFRR to be above all the most canonical vision of this world, do we disregard anything that depicts toons as being tiny critters playing their roles on desks? Do we dare suggest that "Duck Amuck" is nonexistent in that world??
On a side note, my brother and I just realized that Time Warner now owns Warner Bros., Hanna-Barbera, Turner, MGM, DC comics, Mad magazine, and part of Famous/Fleischer Studios... so they own just about every cartoon character from the Golden Age in existence, including Cats Don't Dance. If Disney ever wanted to make another Roger Rabbit film, they'd only have to go to one company to have crossovers!
|
|
|
Post by Fatal hilarity on Apr 28, 2009 19:03:00 GMT -5
Does anyone have any opinions on how Cats Don't Dance relates to the WFRR world? I mean, it's about how animals in the Golden Age of Hollywood never get a break simply because they're animals. The problem mainly comes from the fact that the rules in this movie seem to be different from those in WFRR. Instead of toons interacting with "real" humans in a live action world, it's about toon animals interacting with toon humans in a toon world. I'm especially uncertain because of this artist, who treats Cats Don't Dance as if it were part of the same world: eazilyamewzed.deviantart.com/I mean, even Slappy Squirrel is in there. Speaking of Slappy, now that I've gotten the first volume of The Animaniacs DVDs, I'm finding it much more insightful than I previously realized. Think about it: where else do you learn about WB's "secret history" in animation? Consider for instance the main characters, Yakko, Wakko, and Dot. Their backstory tells of WB's early days in animation, back in the Termite Terrace period, and how the Warner brothers and Warner sister were created by WB and never saw the light of day until the 90's. I recently watched an episode on YouTube talking about how WB was still using Buddy, a clone of Bosko, and that the Warner bros./sister were created in a fever of deadline-fueled insanity. After some attempts at making shorts with them and Buddy, and presumably some solo shorts, they were locked up in the water tower and were unknown to the public until decades later. Slappy Squirrel used to be one of WB's stars in the show's world, back in the day when zany, looney, dynamite-toting toons were at their highest popularity. Unfortunately, she went largely unnoticed, and went into retirement severely underrated. Today, she's aged quite a bit, and has a lot of dirt on all the classic cartoon characters. I assume since we know from Tiny Toons' "Fields of Honey" that toons age from laughter depravation, that Slappy spent all those decades without anyone laughing at her and therefore became old. The same goes for her enemies. Because of this, I think she's worthy of appearing in Toon Patrol fanfics. Several sources, including a Roger Rabbit comic I own and an episode of Bonkers, indicate that black-and-white toons had a downfall when cartoons switched to color. I'm sure everyone remembers Betty Boop's line about the subject- and believe it or not, she had ONE color short, and had red hair! She's in color on her merchandise nowadays, though. The Roger Rabbit comic, "The Color of Trouble!", talks about b&w toons losing their jobs to color toons. I guess this would apply to any cartoon character that didn't survive into the color era. It also talks about how silent toons that didn't make it into the sound era. This doesn't sit right with me. What indication is there of toons from the silent era being unable to make any sound? Surely that's only the fault of the filming process. I mean, would it fair to make a toon mute just because they wouldn't be able to use his/her voice? Okay, so maybe they wouldn't talk much or have a tendency to use talk bubbles more often, but somehow a completely silent toon using title cards to communicate sounds silly. Both this issue and the episode of Bonkers, "Color Me Piquel", discuss the desires of b&w toons wanting to colorize themselves. It would seem that there isn't really a foolproof, legal way to do it (which baffles me since there are so many colorized b&w cartoon shorts), since the comic has the secretly-applied color fade, and the Bonkers episode has the toons stealing it from other color toons. Does anyone have an opinion on these concepts? It seems to be missing some details here. Is colorizing difficult to obtain "off the shelf", so to speak? I'll discuss a couple of Bonkers episodes as well soon.
|
|
|
Post by psychoangel51402 on Apr 29, 2009 10:36:45 GMT -5
Does Cats Don't Dance say that the animals are cartoons? If not, we may have to accept it as another example of acting...
That concept of the Animaniacs being locked in the water tower disturbs me for some reason...
I don't think Toons are silent b/c they appear in silent films. I think that cartoons created to star in silent films simply weren't given voices. Bugs Bunny hints at how he is able to speak - he says that Mel Blanc was "the man of a thousand voices, and he was kind enough to give me one of them" (this was a Chuck Jones cartoon, by the way, but I don't believe it was created in the 40s. More around the 70s, I think) . So they may be silent, but not because they were in silent films. just because they didn't need voices. However, they may still have voices if their creators wanted them to. Just because we didn't hear Charlie Chaplin's voice in his films doesn't mean he couldn't talk, am I right?
|
|
|
Post by Fatal hilarity on Apr 29, 2009 14:15:55 GMT -5
Nobody mentions that they're cartoons in Cats Don't Dance. Just the fact that they're animals. Do you suppose it wasn't actual events in the '30s, then? That it's just toons in the '90s pretending to be from the 30's? That might explain the modern film posters in the end credits...
From the looks of things, the Warner bros./sister were well-accommodated, though. Every time we get a chance to look at the inside of the water tower, we see that they have a bunch of props and furniture and everything... so my theory is that they were given a bunch of stuff to keep them entertained while they were imprisoned. I guess they escaped when they started getting bored, then, huh? I guess the Bugs Bunny telephone they have in one episode is something they got after escaping...
One thing that doesn't sit well with me is how the show blurs the line between their human characters and their toon characters. Which one is "real"? Actually, because of the humans' tendency to make wild takes and all, I like to think that they're all toons (besides the celebrity caricatures), and that they all work for WB's animation dept. Bonkers certainly makes the distinction obvious...
So you think it could go either way, then? Silent and with a voice? I guess that's reasonable. I'm just thinking it'd be rather mean to not give a toon a voice for pure practical reasons. What if the toon wanted to communicate? Would they be forced to use talk balloons, like they often use in silent cartoons? I just think it's reasonable to assume that the filming process is a big part of it. So do you think that toons are given their voices by humans, then? Is that part of the process of their "birth"? How does that explain the absence of voice actors in the Tiny Toons episode "The Looney Beginning"? Babs and Buster Bunny are created with their voices without any help. Don't you suppose that the artist's imagination would create the voice? Would the Toon Patrol's voice actors be from an entirely different generation in the WFRR world, then? Charles Fleischer wasn't around in the '40s in our world, after all. Only June Foray comes from that generation. And how does that explain Bugs Bunny's life story? According to "What's Up, Doc?" he was born and raised by parents, and had a career long before he made it into film. Now how does that explain his early cartoons where he was white-furred and had an entirely different voice? Is "What's Up, Doc?" just a dramatization of his life?
So any opinions on the "drawing board" method of creating cartoons? I mean, we all know that Roger made his cartoons on a set, not on a drawing board where he was all tiny. Or do some studio shrink their characters down?
|
|
|
Post by Fatal hilarity on May 12, 2009 19:35:48 GMT -5
Okay, I figured it was time I discussed a few Bonkers episodes...
"I Oughta Be In Toons"- This one centers around Mickey Mouse's kidnapping and being replaced by an impostor. A fun idea and all, but I'm a little confused because Mickey is depicted as living in a huge palace-like mansion instead of a humble suburban home. Why did they do this? Everyone associates him with suburbia, especially since Mickey's Toontown had been open for almost six months (Jan. 24, 1993) when this episode first aired (Nov. 11, 1993). And before that, the comic books had him living in Mouseton a couple of years before. Mickey's Toontown Fair in Disney World's Magic Kingdom, meanwhile, is supposed to be the holiday homes for the classic characters. My best guess is that the animation team wasn't aware of the plans for Toontown. Even more awkward is the fact that the script deliberately avoids ever mentioning Mickey's name, and everyone refers to him as "The Mouse", supposedly in reverence, but they say it no matter unnatural it sounds. Also, the only thing we see of Mickey is his silhouette, and he spends the rest of the episode trapped in a pet carrier. Obviously, they were trying to be clever, but it didn't really work.
"Color Me Piquel"- This episode introduces the concept of a human being "Tooned", which involves being in close proximity with a toon long enough to get paint rubbed off on him, causing the human to laugh a lot. The effect is temporary. Or in the words of Fall-Apart Rabbit: "Extended physical proximity with toons, such as being crammed together in a drain pipe, results in involuntary imprinting of personality, often accompanied by 'color transference'." Wouldn't getting some of your paint rubbed off be painful for a toon? It sounds like skinning your knee or something. Bonkers doesn't seem to mind, and even considers the phenomenon to be "sharing some of the good stuff". This episode also addresses the relation between toon objects and human ones, much like the earlier episode I discussed- "Basic Spraining"- which revealed that a human has to hold a toon's hand to go through a toon-painted tunnel. Here, Lucky is unable to go through a portable hole. It seems that the only requirement for a human to be able to go through such things is a simple case of mind over matter. Several common phrases come to mind: "You just gotta believe", "There is no spoon", and "It's all in the mind". Or like Bonkers puts it, you need to "toon yourself in". Unfortunately, the episode also refers to such toon objects as "not real". This doesn't make sense- how can toons in the WFRR world be mere figments of everyone's imagination? They seem pretty darn real to me. Also, the Mad Hatter and the March Hare seem to have some glowing void behind a door in their home where a human can learn "toonism". Don't ask me how it works. Apparently, you look like a toon when you learn toonism- meaning you become brightly colored. For some reason you can make a bridge appear that way, and that a toon can be unable to cross such a bridge if they don't believe it to exist. This is the "not real" issue I mentioned. Of course, you'll remember that this episode is also about two black and white toons who want to steal other toons' color. Bonkers insists that you have to have color on the inside- figuratively- in order get color on the outside- literally- otherwise it's impossible to be colorized.
"Seems Like Old Toons"- This one's embarrassing. In fact, it's the only one in this series that I consider non-canonical. It is simply because of this: the story centers around the insistence that cartoons are made the same way they're made in our world- drawn and photographed one frame at a time. Not only does this completely contradict WFRR's clear depiction of toons being filmed by cameras like live-action stars, it doesn't make any sense: why NOT film them like everything else? It's not like the toons can't move on their own or stand in front of a camera. It even contradicts some of the other episodes of the series! Bonkers HIMSELF stood in front of a camera! It's just plain nuts.
"Imagine That"- This one is interesting because expands toon portals even further- this time, it's about the doorways that toon pencils draw and become fully functional doors. Apparently there's a Wackyland-esque world that these doors can go to, and only toons have entered. If toon-drawn doorways are anything like toon-painted train tunnels or portable holes, I'll betcha that they ALL go to this strange world (if that's where the toon wants to go, I guess). The video game Toonstruck seems to agree with this, because they depict the strange in-between world that going from one end of a portable hole to another reveals. This time, though, it looks less like Wackyland and more like the Twilight Zone opening credits, with black, spacey skies instead of bright sunrise yellow ones. I guess it's more appropriate to the black color of the portable holes.
Also, there's this episode of House of Mouse, called "Dennis the Duck"- Dennis the Duck is a black and white toon who's a special guest at the House of Mouse for "Black & White Day". When Donald tells him that he isn't funny, he gets all depressed and tries to commit suicide. He does this by erasing himself with a giant toon pencil. Luckily, Donald is there to save him and draw him back again- apparently even a completely erased toon can be brought to life again by redrawing them... or did they never truly die? What is the nature of dying by erasing? It doesn't seem to work entirely.
Dennis the Duck reminded me of how there's such a large amount of cartoon characters who have careers, shows, and shorts in the WFRR world, but nothing in ours. Roger Rabbit himself as you all know never actually starred in cartoons in the '40s in our world, but he did in his own world. So far, the largest source for such toons has been Roger Rabbit comics, Bonkers, and The Animaniacs. Some off the top of my head include Roger, Dennis, Wacky Weasel, Bucky Beaver, Doodles the Cat, Fawn Deer, Slappy Squirrel, The Warner Brothers and Sister... There are also a number of fictional cartoon studios, like Maroon Cartoons. Bonkers used to work for Wackytoons. Unfortunately, I can't remember any others. I'm considering writing a guide to them for WFRR fanfiction writers to use, but I may have my brother do it, since I've been working so hard on the weasel guide.
EDIT: It's occurred to me that a handful of works have independently offered a means of transforming a human into a toon. If any of may remember, Gary K. Wolf's sequel Who P-P-P-Plugged Roger Rabbit? centered around the morally questionable creation Toon Tonic, which could turn a human into a toon and vice versa. Obviously, this can create interesting results. In his short story "Stay Tooned, Folks!", which seems to take place during the time it was written, he treats Toon Tonic less like a mad scientist's dangerous concoction and more like a prescription medicine that the FDA hasn't approved. It's also unclear whether or not it completely transforms a human, and seems to just give a human toon abilities. Apparently it's extracted from "the humorous glands of laughing hyenas", whatever that la-de-da means. In Toonstruck, Christopher Lloyd's character is injected with some strange potion that will slowly transform him into a toon by the game's main villain. And by golly, it works. He even seems to embrace it at the end of the game... And if you remember, the Bonkers episode "Out of Sight, Out of Toon" had Toon Flu, which, if caught by a human, can temporarily transform the person into a toon. If your last name ends with "P", the effect is permanent.
Another topic in the WFRR world is the enhancement and removal of a toon's sense of humor. The Tiny Toons episode "Senserely Yours, Babs" (yes, it's spelled that way) as part of "The Acme Acres Zone" is about an invention of Calamity Coyote's that's meant to increase the power of her sense of humor, in her own words. It goes awry and instead separates her from her sense of humor completely, supposedly, which is personified as a ghost-like version of herself. The joke here is that Babs is really bland without her sense of humor, but the problem is that her sense of humor resorts to crude physical gags and puns, and her "bland" self is actually funnier. The way I see it, her sense of humor was actually split in half, leaving her body with only her subtle humor. Whatever the case, she apparently needs to become whole again before sundown, or else the changes are permanent.
Meanwhile, the Bonkers episode "The Toon That Ate Hollywood" is about another crackpot invention that supposed to improve a toon's funny factor- this time created by Prof. Ludwig von Drake. Instead of the Star Trek transportation style of the one in Tiny Toons, Ludwig's "Humorizer" is a portable, gun-shaped gizmo that sucks out a toon's funniness (which takes the form of a glowing smile, coupled with the toon's unique laugh), leaving it available for a beneficial rinse cycle and reinsertion into the toon. When in the wrong hands, the toons have their funniness stolen, leaving them as uncontrollably sobbing heaps. Unfortunately, this is comical crying, so it doesn't really fly. If I were to have a plot like this, I'd have the toons become subdued, depressed, pessimistic and real sourpusses- sort of like Eddie before his redemption. My point is that neither of these examples completely work because the toons who have their humor removed are still... funny. The episode's climax involves a toon absorbing all of the stolen funniness, and becoming a Godzilla-sized giant. For some reason his comic routine mostly consists of puns, albeit funnier puns than the ones used in the Tiny Toons episode.
So... what then? Do toons become extremely broad when their humor is supercharged? Somehow that doesn't make much sense.
|
|
kishi
Experienced member
Posts: 345
|
Post by kishi on May 23, 2009 6:54:43 GMT -5
Ipana toothpaste used a character called "Bucky Beaver" in their TV ads in the 50s. www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7WMABRjTjMXD So...does he count then? See, how I would do it is keep the episodes that make sense together and throw out whatever is left over. (They're all written by different people, and sometimes they just can't agree on what is 'right' in a series. ) Like the "Seems Like Old Toons" one. I dunno about toons and their sense of humor being supercharged. Sounds like it could get dangerous...toons already have crazy senses of humor.
|
|
|
Post by Fatal hilarity on May 23, 2009 15:23:04 GMT -5
Hmm... not exactly. This may be a short, of sorts, but they don't specifically depict him as having a career. Instead, I'd say he was more of an unusual case of the mascot toon, and that this commercial served as a cartoon short as well as an advertisement. You see, the requirement is that somebody, in the WFRR world, is watching the toon on TV, or seeing them film a short or feature, or mentions the career they have or used to have. BUT, they aren't available to us in complete form or weren't available to us at the time they were supposed to be released in the WFRR-world timeline. A distinction, in my opinion, should be made between such cases and random toons who just show up. Most often a toon will appear in a story without any reference to a career, which would leave me to believe that the toon has not made it in show business. One exception I would make is the Slappy Squirrel parody of Bambi, called "Bumbi". Since this is an obvious parody made simply for satirical purposes and because of copyright reasons, I'd change it so that Slappy was really referring to Bambi. (The beaver toon in Bonkers is named "Bucky Buzzsaw" instead of "Bucky Beaver", by the way. Just correcting myself...)
As for "Seems Like Old Toons", I would say that the animation studio and its stars depicted in this episode existed at one point, but not the events.
|
|
kishi
Experienced member
Posts: 345
|
Post by kishi on May 23, 2009 16:43:59 GMT -5
Ah well, I dunno about Bucky Buzzsaw, just the other. I think they should count. Does Tony the Tiger not count just because he's spent his (very long) career hawking cereal? XD I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by Fatal hilarity on May 23, 2009 21:27:54 GMT -5
Who said mascot toons don't count? Of course they do! They have "careers" in our world and the WFRR world. I'm talking about toons who have careers in the WFRR world ONLY.
Roger is the best example of this. While we do get to see Tummy Trouble, in his world that short was released in the '40s instead of like in our world where it was shown in front of Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. There's actually mascot toons in Bonkers like that.
Now, take for instance Bucky Buzzsaw. He's got a TV series in Bonkers. But could you flip on Toon Disney and watch his TV show, or buy videos or DVDs of it, at any point in the world WE live in? No, of course not. But you probably could in the world Bonkers lives in. I call these sort of characters "in-world" toons.
There are a number of topics I mentioned previously that haven't been addressed yet, but I don't care to repeat them... they've really piled up, y'know?
|
|
|
Post by jebikun on May 23, 2009 22:55:09 GMT -5
Toon's life, birth and death stuff is really interesting subject because you need facts and lots of imagination to discuss this! No definite answer to this...but still wonderful stuff to think about. I'm enjoying reading you guys' thoughts ^^ I can't even write down my thoughts...it's all so tangled up. Cats Don't Dance confused me actually...they drew another line between human form toons and talking animal-ish toons...but in that movie it's supposed to be the real world...arrrgh. We need DEEP THOUGHT the computer for this...
|
|
|
Post by Fatal hilarity on May 23, 2009 23:38:50 GMT -5
Too bad we're all descendants of telephone sanitizers... maybe then we'd be able to figure this stuff out! XD
Yeah, both Cats Don't Dance and Animaniacs kind of blur the line... it leads me to believe that CDD is a case of acting, instead of "reality". And like I said, I like to think that the humans in Animaniacs are actually toons, and work for WB's toon division... Which kind of works, since Bucky Buzzsaw's director is "Duck Jones". (Haha, get it? XP)
|
|
kishi
Experienced member
Posts: 345
|
Post by kishi on May 24, 2009 6:39:48 GMT -5
Aw, maaan. XD Duck Jones. There are two ways to take "Cats Don't Dance" (Which is one of my favorite movies ever.). It's either: A. That they are all toons playing a part in a movie. B. That they are animals and 'real' people. But I -do- think, if you suspend the animated humans and think about it, that the whole thing would also apply to WFRR. What with the animals being oppressed and looked down on, typecast and never allowed to fulfill their true potential. There was supposed to be a scene at the end of the "Pig-headed" scene where Eddie has to ride in the back of the Red Car to get back to his office because if he rode in the front it would cause a scene. Which kind of shows that toons were looked down on. (Almost as the African Americans were treated once, everything is separate. ) Which -might- explain why the weasels were so gung-ho about destroying their OWN TOWN. o.O If they felt oppressed by being forced to live in Toontown, I could easily see them trying to cook up a scheme to get out. I just wonder if anyone else had thought of that. XD It always seemed odd that -toons- were willing to destroy Toontown. Then I read that and was like "Now it makes a little sense." I've been exploring some of this in an unpublished fanfic. *laughs*
|
|
|
Post by Fatal hilarity on May 24, 2009 16:25:59 GMT -5
Yeah, but the two main antagonists in CDD are awfully toony... especially Max.
I had always imagined the weasels hated other toons because all the other toons are prejudiced against them. It's been my observation that half of the reason the Disney weasels act so dastardly and deviously is because everyone expects them to. Just look at Perfesser and his gang and Stan the Woozle...
I understand the whole prejudice against toons thing, which is something I wholly intend to explore in my own fiction, especially since we've got sourpusses like Eddie and Lucky Piquel. But I'm not so sure about being forced to live in Toontown... from the looks of things, most of the toons are happy to live there! Just look at "Smile, Darn Ya, Smile"! They're also really happy to have their town saved and in their legal possession. Yeah, so I've always thought it was the weasels' severe hatred against other toons. Alienation, really. My theory is that since they're rooted in weasel stereotypes dating at least back to The Wind in the Willows book, they partially can't help themselves. That stereotyping also causes other toons to treat them with contempt, leading to a good deal of verbal abuse and accusation.
I think that version of the script was a tad closer to the book, since I don't personally think they'd be that separated... it's a possibility. I guess you can make the comparison of blackface minstrel shows making white people laugh and cartoons making people laugh... One thing I explore in one of my projects is the political left insisting on public places allowing mixed, integrated audiences or customers- both humans and toons. Restaurants, stores, concerts... and churches. Since it takes place in the '50s, when such thinking started emerging, and goes into the '60s, I think it's entirely appropriate that toons would be directly involved in the social revolutions of those time periods.
One thing that Bonkers explores a lot is how toons interact with humans, how they understand each other, and the process of the two learning about each other. It's been very valuable to me because of that. How do toons think or feel? What makes them tick? That sort of thing. It makes me think of the majority of toons as very sentimental creatures, due to their purpose and nature- "Laughter is their only weapon", to paraphrase Roger. It makes me imagine that toon hearts would have a remarkable quality to them...
I think it's time we address this question: Where did the weasels come from? Were they born or created? Did they have parents? I notice a good amount of people think that they have parents, myself included- but that does not necessarily mean that the Toon Patrol and their parents came into being at separate times. It could be that they and their parents were created at the same time, like it is in some cases. Now if they were all created, with no voluntary breeding whatsoever, who created them and why? What were they doing before they became social outsiders? I personally like to think that there was a time when the weasels were trying to start a career in show business, and that they managed to star in a few black and white shorts made by Maroon Cartoons. Also, I think that the Toon Patrol and Slithy, Doofus, and Al ("The Weasel Trio"), at least, grew up together and knew each other. This is because Slithy refers to them as "brothers", although as many of you probably know, I don't like to take him literally.
|
|