Talk:Lunchroom Rumble/@comment-12834015-20140814023145/@comment-3242362-20140814035835

Well, I have a response to this, but it's essentially expanding on Kirkland's response. So, if you want a tl;dr, please refer to the above response. That said...

In the first case, I think that there could be two different cartoons you're referring to. The first one, which is an actual cartoon, has the coyote catching the roadrunner after either he's grown tiny or the roadrunner's grown huge. Either way, he's tiny compared to his "catch" and is thus no trouble. If it's the other cartoon, well, that one's a very poorly made fraud. And in the case of Craig McCracken, you'll note that the face of Mac's mom is never seen in Foster's.

Ignoring these, however, I think that Antonucci's logic is akin to that of Calvin and Hobbes creator Bill Watterson. In said comic, there is an incident involving Calvin, some noodles, and something that happened at school that is brought up a few times. What it was is never revealed. Watterson's logic for not revealing it was "[The Noodle Incident] is left to the reader's imagination, where it's sure to be more outrageous." In turn, I believe that Antonucci's logic between not revealing it was the same: don't show what's under the hat because it'll never live up to what the fans imagine. I think I saw this confirmed somewhere by Antonucci, in fact, but I can't remember where.