DimeUhDozen
She/Her- 5,663
- 4,237
A while ago, there was a much needed decompositing thread on the Looney Tunes verse. The main argument to this is from my understanding is that every short is it's own canon and nothing really matters. But there is something that ties the Looney Tunes canon altogether. And this is something I would like to introduce as Actors Canonicity.
Actors Canonicity:
Actors Canonicity refers to the consistent idea that the Looney Tunes are all actors in their respective cartoons. For example, when Daffy Duck plays the role of Robin Hood, he is taking on the mantle of Robin Hood for the sake of the short, and when other characters who have met him act as if they have not, this too is all a part of the show. This also plays into the meta-nature of the show. You may remember Looney Tunes as being exceedingly meta, addressing or sometimes even threatening the audience. There is a reason for this. They are actors. The series, even up to the main plot twist at the end of the film Back In Action, are hard-pressed to this theory, and it spans all the way back to the Merrie Melodies shorts. In canon, multiple characters refer to their classic shorts as one would their own filmography. But I hear you say, Maid, you sly girl, wouldn't this mean that all physicals, skills, and abilities are non-valid? And the answer to that is: No.
While the Tunes are actors, they do their own stunts, feel pain, can even go against the script if they want, very frequently, even against the whims of the Animator themselves, and some characters aren't even aware that they're in a short, while others do. There is a case in the before-mentioned Back In Action in which Daffy Duck was tricked into playing out the entire movie, believing that it was real, only for it to be fake through some impossible toon logic. But that's just the kind of logic we're working with. It's Looney Tunes, after all. But we can make this much sense out of it.
It's important to note that there are two forms of fourth wall-breaking in the Looney Tunes verse. The first is just talking to the audience or attacking the cameraman or things of that nature, which aren't enough to grant stuff like Tier 1. Animaniacs for example, just has the toons run around the Warner Movie Lot and torment their staff regularly. But stuff like destroying the cartoon they're in, becoming the animator, and attacking those have a clear R>F difference between them would count, as discussed in the cosmology thread. The Warner Bros in the "real world" and the Warner Bros in the cartoon world are different entities.
Now for the evidence. In the Merrie Melodies shorts, Elmer Fudd is shown to rip up his contract with Warner and quit his job as Bugs's adversary. The entire premise of one Daffy short his him pitching his script to Warner. The entire short, "That (blooper) Bunny", is fundamentally based on this concept. In shows like Tiny Toon Adventures, Bugs Bunny is frequently shown with references to his past filmography as a cartoon star and multiple references are made to past material. In Animaniacs, the entire show is set on the Warners Movie Lot where cartoon stars like Porky Pig show up to work, and a main character, Slappy Squirrel, used to be a Looney Tunes star herself. They even show some history in which some of the Looney Tunes are shown to be out of a job. Consistently, the Looney Tunes gang in general are portrayed as actors, and provide commentary on how the Warner Siblings got their start and cartoons like What's Opera Doc, Duck Amuck and Porky in Wackyland are revealed to be canon in-verse. We can apply this logic to work in the Looney Tunes canon where they are considered cartoon stars, connecting the larger verse at whole. The works affected by this would be:
Disagree:
Neutral: Flashlight237 (1)
Actors Canonicity:
Actors Canonicity refers to the consistent idea that the Looney Tunes are all actors in their respective cartoons. For example, when Daffy Duck plays the role of Robin Hood, he is taking on the mantle of Robin Hood for the sake of the short, and when other characters who have met him act as if they have not, this too is all a part of the show. This also plays into the meta-nature of the show. You may remember Looney Tunes as being exceedingly meta, addressing or sometimes even threatening the audience. There is a reason for this. They are actors. The series, even up to the main plot twist at the end of the film Back In Action, are hard-pressed to this theory, and it spans all the way back to the Merrie Melodies shorts. In canon, multiple characters refer to their classic shorts as one would their own filmography. But I hear you say, Maid, you sly girl, wouldn't this mean that all physicals, skills, and abilities are non-valid? And the answer to that is: No.
While the Tunes are actors, they do their own stunts, feel pain, can even go against the script if they want, very frequently, even against the whims of the Animator themselves, and some characters aren't even aware that they're in a short, while others do. There is a case in the before-mentioned Back In Action in which Daffy Duck was tricked into playing out the entire movie, believing that it was real, only for it to be fake through some impossible toon logic. But that's just the kind of logic we're working with. It's Looney Tunes, after all. But we can make this much sense out of it.
It's important to note that there are two forms of fourth wall-breaking in the Looney Tunes verse. The first is just talking to the audience or attacking the cameraman or things of that nature, which aren't enough to grant stuff like Tier 1. Animaniacs for example, just has the toons run around the Warner Movie Lot and torment their staff regularly. But stuff like destroying the cartoon they're in, becoming the animator, and attacking those have a clear R>F difference between them would count, as discussed in the cosmology thread. The Warner Bros in the "real world" and the Warner Bros in the cartoon world are different entities.
Now for the evidence. In the Merrie Melodies shorts, Elmer Fudd is shown to rip up his contract with Warner and quit his job as Bugs's adversary. The entire premise of one Daffy short his him pitching his script to Warner. The entire short, "That (blooper) Bunny", is fundamentally based on this concept. In shows like Tiny Toon Adventures, Bugs Bunny is frequently shown with references to his past filmography as a cartoon star and multiple references are made to past material. In Animaniacs, the entire show is set on the Warners Movie Lot where cartoon stars like Porky Pig show up to work, and a main character, Slappy Squirrel, used to be a Looney Tunes star herself. They even show some history in which some of the Looney Tunes are shown to be out of a job. Consistently, the Looney Tunes gang in general are portrayed as actors, and provide commentary on how the Warner Siblings got their start and cartoons like What's Opera Doc, Duck Amuck and Porky in Wackyland are revealed to be canon in-verse. We can apply this logic to work in the Looney Tunes canon where they are considered cartoon stars, connecting the larger verse at whole. The works affected by this would be:
- Looney Tunes Shorts/Merrie Melodies
- Tiny Toon Adventures
- Animaniacs
- Pinky and The Brain (sub-set of Animaniacs)
- Freakazoid (was accepted to by a part of the canon in this thread)
- Taz-Mania (Consistent with the actors canon)
- Space Jam (Is consistently referred to as a film in-verse, although the "Looney Tune Land" origins of the toons is purely made up for the film)
- The Sylvester and Tweety Mysteries (As seen above)
- Looney Tunes: Back In Action (EXTREMELY consistent with the actors canon)
- Duck Dodgers (Refers to a Bugs Bunny cameo connecting it to the actors canon - S2E3B K9 Quarry)
- Loonatics Unleashed (Exists as an in-universe show, as referred to in Animaniacs and Looney Tunes)
- Looney Tunes Webtoons (Also consistent with actors canon, with Bugs Bunny noting the nature of him just being in a cartoon without the need of special effects)
- Looney Tunes Comics (Consistent with the actors canon and makes references to the cartoons. Buster Bunny appears in one issue as well as multiple characters from past shorts)
- Looney Tunes Cartoons (Features the return of several old Looney Tunes characters from Bugs's past and Elmer Fudd references his history with Bugs directly citing images from theatrical shorts)
- Space Jam: A New Legacy (Referenced in World of Mayhem and features the Warner Siblings from Animaniacs)
- World of Mayhem (Consistently references old material and is stated on multiple occasions by staff and consultants at Warner Bros to be canon)
- The Looney Tunes Show (TLTS takes place in a grounded sitcom environment and doesn't connect to the canon whatsoever)
- Baby Looney Tunes (Same as above, minus the sitcom)
- Video Games (Video Games are set within their own individual canons, as per most verses, with the exception of perhaps the game Acme Arsenal, which leans into the actors canon and references past work and the before-mentioned World of Mayhem)
Disagree:
Neutral: Flashlight237 (1)
Last edited:
I yield my proposal of slight change.
