Characters Never Aging

S

Sorix

New member
In most fiction, characters never age and and time hardy, if ever, moves. I believe this is because makings some changes can complicate things for the creators, as well as alienate their audence. But still, there are some things that should never change(namely icons), but are their series that you think should move forward and adapt?

Take Family Guy, for instance. Sure, all the other characters age and mature, but why does Stewie remain one? Would aging him to two cause some problems?

And this is probably one of the reasons why most people prefer the Digimon anime over the Pokemon anime. Even in the Pokemon Adventures Manga, the characters age. Of course, the video games were no better.

They don't even look 10.
 
Well, it's easier from an animator's standpoint to keep everyone the same age, otherwise you have to subtly change the character models every year or every few years.

I don't think it's a question of if aging Stewie to two would cause problems as much as it is, what problems would it solve? What adventures or scenarios could Stewie find himself in that he couldn't as a one-year old?

Actually, come to think of it I can think of a potential problem. By age two, most kids are conversing with others using baby words, and so far adults just ignore Stewie (despite his speaking perfect English, thus implying that we are listening to him through some sort of magical translation device.) If Stewie aged to two, what would it mean for his speaking ability? He's clearly super-intelligent, hearing him speak actual baby-talk would be bizarre. And if he could actually converse with the adults, his character would have to change pretty dramatically, as would others' dealings with him. And how would Brian react to others' reactions, since he has been able to converse with Stewie this whole time? It's probably better that Family Guy never crosses this boundary. It's unnecessary and yes, it could screw a lot of things up.
 
I think that the writing and designing process of animation is complicated enough without having to redesign your characters every year or every couple of years. Cartoon characters should age only if/when it suits the show. I honestly never understood why some fans want to see cartoon characters age the same way that we do. What purpose would that serve, really?
 
I don't know, look at Avatar. Aang started out as a goofy little kid, and matured to a butt-kick adolscent.

The Rugrats shot up nine years and then got their own series, and, quite frankly, their baby counterparts were far more tolerable. :shrug:

I like when characters age. It's just interesting to see how they grow. My personal favorite is Simba from The Lion King 1 & 2, the age progression showed him mature physically while his attitude and view on life was still a fun-loving, if not arrogant persona. And in numero dos, his real traumatic past comes center stage in his overprotective and very bias approachs to Scar's followers. It's sad, heartfelt and sometimes beautiful. :)
 
Eh, the occasional flashback/flash forward sequence/episode is just fine by me.

Let's keep in kind also that TV shows and movies are 2 completely different beasts. The average short tells a very simple story and each episode is (usually) a self contained story. Features, on the other hand, have much more complex plots and are not told in a continuous fashion, save for sequels, so the rules that apply to an animated movie don't apply to those for a endless TV series.
 
Continuity and canon is fine, but I still don't get why it's so important for some fans to see the characters age. We've seen older versions of The Simpsons characters in 2 flash forward episodes, neither of which were very good. We've seen the Rugrats characters' older selves in All Grown Up, which if you ask me should never have gone beyond a one-time-only special. The kids were allegedly aged around 10 or 11, but they acted as though they were around 15 or 16. Angelica and Susie were the only real teenagers. Seeing the Rugrats as tweens once was a fine novelty, but turning AGU into an endless series was pushing it.

To reiterate: aging should only happen in cartoons when it's artistically valid and necessary for the plot/story, and not done solely for the sake of doing so.
 
The way I see it, when never-aging characters do things that would require aging (like The Simpsons having multiple Christmas episodes), it needs to be taken more loosely. As in, instead of trying to analyze the situation, simply look at it like the previous episodes happened a year earlier, with the characters simply looking the same. If you start to throw in too much logic, you're not enjoying the show anymore.
What? "Lisa's Wedding" was awesome!
 
I guess that is what has happend to me. When I was young and naive, fiction was my life. I didn't have a care nor thought in the world. When I grew up, I tend to look twice and think. Try to see thing in more reality and less fantasy, even those I'm not supposed to. Believility, and reason got the best of me. I understand why fans of Japanese fiction left Western fiction in favor of the former, even if it has similar faults(Detective Conan, I can understand, but one Piece? I didn't think Japanese fiction wold have examples. Guess who prove me wrong).
 
For me, cartoons don't have to be realistic, since I watch them to escape from reality. I don't believe that cartoons need to be subjected to the same limitations as live action programs do. If cartoons have to be subject to physical laws, then you might as well just use live actors.

Fictional characters are subject to the whims of their creators. If the creators want to age their characters, they'll age them, but it's no one else's place to make that demand. Cartoon characters can age when they need to be aged, but I don't see it as a requirement, and I don't understand why some fans do. I've read posts from fans of shows like The Simpsons who have gone so far as to demand that the characters be aged simply because the series has been on for over a decade. This is a mentality that I've never understood. Why try to fix something when it isn't broken? If you want to see The Simpsons with Bart and Lisa as adults, Maggie as a teenager and Homer and Marge as senior citizens or Charlie Brown and the gang going to college, there's always fan fiction.
 
In fairness, would letting characters age gradually really muck up most animated series? With the exception of insanely successful stuff like the Simpsons most toons are lucky to get three or four seasons, maybe five tops.

Take Spectacular Spider-Man for instance. Season 1 starts of with Peter beginning his junior year of high school in September and follows his adventures all the way through October and November, right up to Thanksgiving. Likewise season two covers everything between February and March.

This seems like a good model for letting characters age in a natural way.
 
With most adults, yes. With his family (Brian aside) it's usually just vague acknowledgement or brief answers that mostly relate to his actions rather than his words. For example, Stewie tries to get a cookie and his mom, mama, mum, mother, mommy (:p) gets it for him but virtually no conversation is actually held between his parents and him.

Come on, that's just creepy. :sweat:
 
It depends on the show. In some shows, it works. In others, it doesn't. A general rule (though there's of course numerous exceptions): In slapstick comedies and kid's shows, it doesn't work. In action shows and others with some grounding in reality, it does.

For example, in Fairly Odd Parents, it would be nonsensical to age the characters. (In fact, it would be a horrible decision, 'cause then we'd lose Crocker. :eek:) It wouldn't make sense, and wouldn't offer anything to the series.

However, TSSM relies quite heavily on its continuity, and has, as a result, created very specific methods to age characters. Season One is September through November, Season Two is December through March, and Season Three - we'll find out. That's probably the best way to age characters when need be - by setting up a formalized calendar. However, what works in one show wouldn't work in another, and this system simply wouldn't fly for South Park.
 
I prefer it when they do age, provided it's done in a well-handled fashion. I tend to shy away from long-running shows like the Simpsons where they have about twenty Chirstmases but no one ever gets older, but in shorter shows that last around 52 episodes it's a nice touch. WITCH takes place over the course of about a year and a half. It starts in the autumn and they go through Christmas, spring break, summer break, autumn again, and the ends during Christmas break. The character age two years over the course of the show and time plays a nice part in it and is integrated into the story.
 
I don't think that will still stop Mr. crocker from catching his fairies.

Okay fine, they don't have to age, but did Butch Hartman(or whoever's working on the series nowadays) have to throw away the character development, likablity, and believility just for some cheap, obvious jokes? Most people gave up on the series because of that.

Oh, please. Seth Macfarlan slipped0up in an episode where the family(minus the punching bag) were trapped in a flooded room. When Stewart said something about The Godfather, Lois AND Peter heard him. Seth must have forgotten about that incident.
 
Back
Top