Characters aging in cartoons, a good idea or not?

[Blackstar]

I've heard a few posters here mention how they feel that shows like Family Guy and The Simpsons have "lousy continuity due to the fact that the characters don't age.", But is it really that important or such a good idea?

I've already stated my opinions on this in another thread, so rather than re-type what I said, I'll simply copy and paste it here:


The characters on Simpsons and Family Guy not againg never bothered me personally, and quite frankly, I don't understand why that's such an issue for some people. Do you honestly believe that Family Guy and The Simpsons would be better shows if the characters got older every season? Stewie would lose any appeal that he has left if he were no longer a baby; he'd just become a gay stereotype. Bart Simpson at age 10 is a lovable rascal, but he were to suddenly become a teenager or an adult who was no less obnoxious, he would quickly become insufferable. It would be different, certainly, but different doesn't automatically mean better, or even as good.

Why is seeing animated characters get older so important? Sure, Ben 10 aged their main characters when it became Ben 10: Alien Force, but Ben 10: AF also sucked all the charm and likability out of the characters and the show in the process. I personally think that Ben 10 was better before it became a dark teenage angst fest. If you're going to blast The Simpsons and Family Guy for not aging their characters, then you'd have to do the same thing for King of the Hill, Ed, Edd 'N' Eddy, Fosters', Charlie Brown, Dennis the Menace and the many other cartoons in which the characters stayed the same age throughout their respective runs. Lots of animated shows don't age their characters, therefore, it's silly to single out Family Guy and The Simpsons for not doing so.

I say, if you really must see the main characters age, then they should make a new series every few years rather than simply make the entire cast so many years older every season. After all, the process of being creative and writing episodes of a TV series is hard enough without the added burden of making your cast older every new season.

But that's just my take. What's yours?

[tb4000]

Most characters in cartoons never age or change clothes unless it's some type of occasion or in-joke. Unless the creators plan on having the show end at some point in several years, they may age them, like Kim Possible and her two brothers.

[Gokou Ruri]

It's really a double-edged sword, and it takes some skill to wield it. On one hand, it can prevent writers from getting into a repetitive rut (see: The Simpsons) and allow easy access for more storylines in a show, but on the other hand it may also shoot itself in the foot if there's a drastic change (most seen in live-action shows, where the kids grow up to be adults, so if it's a character well-liked for their rebellious kid antics, they can no longer do that aspect. A lot of the times they introduce a new kid character to take over that role, but it's never the same as the old character)

There's also shows like Spongebob, and other episodic comedy series where aging is really pointless, or unneeded. A more "realistic" comedy, like As Told By Ginger, can benefit from aging characters and time passing. So it dependson the writers and the type of show.

Greg Weisman is the only writer I can think of who likes to age his characters and develop time (W.I.T.C.H. did it, and he mentions the next season of Spectacular Spider-Man will be the last half of Peter's junior year at high school.

[Blackstar]

^Good points, all.^

My thing is, I don't believe in making changes for the sake of change alone. It's not always the best thing to just do something different. The only way that I would ever consider "time jumping" characters is if it were for an artistically valid reason.

Some fans feel that The Simpsons has gotten into a rut story and premise wise, but clearly the writers themselves don't seem to think so, and when it comes down to it, it's their show. They can do whatever they want. If the Simpsons team doesn't want to "time jump" the cast, then they shouldn't have to. The characters staying in one age/era doesn't bother them, so it shouldn't bother the fans either.

[SuperStantzio]

Don't forget As Told By Ginger. The characters aged on the show.

[Lavenderpaw]

Well,we saw what became of the rats from the rug.

The TV movie was excellent and highly anticpated (I was a pretty giddy 11-year-old back then when it came out.:anime: ) but the series completely ruined it.

It's the same thing with Alien Force.They could at least inject a little more personality into their characters,instead of giving only a partial performance.Gwen and Ben would be aghast at their teenage counterparts.

[kid rabbit]

I think time jumps are okey like ben 10 alien force and naruto shippuuden
but for most I think future what if storys like the few the simpsons episodes where they showed what the kid would look like grown up are okey for few and far between episodes
(do realy want to see bart and lisa age slowly )
no time jumps are better

[Kagetsu]

To me, they are animated characters and have no reason to age. Aging takes them out of their original story conflict zones and let's face it, subtle story changes especially involving the social conflicts are not the writers strong point. I agree about the Ben 10 / Ben10 AF change. they did loose much of the "sibling/boy-girl yet together as a family" stuff that I really liked. I like the new character designs(except the aliens and Gwen's magic that now looks like green Lantern except it's pink), I just think the story bites now. Maybe it will get better. Kevin and Gwen are the only ones I like and I think both are being stupid.

Anyway.

I've yet to figure out how the writers are changed for shows, but aging the characters means it's harder for the writers to flow with the new conceptions. It really becomes a different show.

it can be done, but only if they really know what their doing.

You can also take in the idea that as a show moves overs a few years, the animators style is going to change, making them older can hide the changes.

[zoombie]

Crayon Shin Chan did a special episode in which they age all the characters by one year. This episode Shin begins is first day as as 1st grader, also Himawara talks. It was one episode only, than everyone went back to their normal ages.

[Mad Mod 49]

Greg Weisman is the only writer I can think of who likes to age his characters and develop time (W.I.T.C.H. did it, and he mentions the next season of Spectacular Spider-Man will be the last half of Peter's junior year at high school.

I know what you mean. Had Greg Weisman been on board W.I.T.C.H in the first season, it probably wouldn't have gotten canned. :sweat:

[Kagetsu]

I know what you mean. Had Greg Weisman been on board W.I.T.C.H in the first season, it probably wouldn't have gotten canned. :sweat::sad:Actually WITCH made it to two seasons and was drawing it's storyline,,, I'll beit half heartedly and after taking much of the emotional darkness out of it,,, from an Italian "manga". I'm not surprised Spectacular Spider Man is time flowing. Peters involvement with both older adults and parent figures almost requires it. and they seem to be doing it well at the moment. A character in the highschool/puberty mode is the most often aged character. How involved they go often depends on whether it's a boy or girl. as Told by Ginger flirted with it, but as far as I know, only Braceface went fpr the whole girl story.

[Gokou Ruri]

I know what you mean. Had Greg Weisman been on board W.I.T.C.H in the first season, it probably wouldn't have gotten canned. :sweat: I kind of doubt it. The fact it reached 52 episodes with all the schedule changes, and lack of airing it on a widely accessible channel (how many kids watch ABC Family and then Toon Disney, compared to the actual Disney Channel?) was pretty lucky. Hearing Greg's plans for the third season makes me wish it did get another season, though.

He seems to be following the same path with Spectacular Spider-Man (changing seasons, pointing out new school years, etcetera) I think for an action show (especially superheroes) it's beneficial, like Kagetsu mentioned. It shows them growing not only with their powers, but their responsibility in using them and overall maturity.

[Taekmkm]

Aging only matters when there's a plot.
________
Milf punishment (http://www.****tube.com/video/25157/humiliated-milf-gets-a-severe-punishment)

[Ickis]

Nah, if its a change of clothes to show age I'm okay with that but I don't really like watching one episode of a cartoon where a character looks normal than another where he\shes all taller and different. At times maturing mentally is good but if the character looses their personality than I don't really like it plus its better if the show has 30 or so episodes with a few drmatic bits, that way its not random that the main character gets wise.

[Wolf Boy2]

I generally like them. Aging Dick Grayson from Robin to Nightwing in BTAS was a good thing. Aging Bruce Wayne to an 80-year old sounds like a mistake, but Batman Beyond was amazing and I actually liked Old Bruce better than Young Bruce in a lot of ways.

Its also interesting to see child/teen characters grow up and have kids of their own, like Spike Witwicky in the original Transformers. Spike was 14 when the show began and 37 when it ended. I thought Adult Spike kicked butt, though his 12-year old son Daniel was annoying.

[Dee]

Over 4 years of MIB, they couldn't really age much-- but I did enjoy seeing the character development over the 4 seasons. Jay became a more seasoned agent and while he wasn't as serious as Kay, he wasn't as green as he was in season 1.

We actually ended up seeing a reversal of time in a few episodes, lol.

I would have liked to see what the MIB and the agents would have been like 25 years down the road. I wouldn't want it to stay that way. I like the familiarity of characters. The Simpsons is a prime example. I'm happy that they're always there, unchanged after all these years.

[Blackstar]

Someone earlier brought up Rugrats, which stands as a good example of why animated characters should not time-jump. Before, the Rugrats characters were saccharine and treacly, but they were at least original. Then they became bland and generic after Rugrats mutated into All Grown Up; they became fill-in-the-blank archetypes of every other teen/tween group of kids on TV. It's worth mentioning that I personally felt that Nick should have left All Grown Up as a one time only special. Seeing the Rugrats characters as tweens might have been entertaining once, but turning it into an endless series was pushing it.

[AlgeaX]

It seems to me that people her are thinking about big "five years later" style flash forwards. hich to my mind are very different to a more gradual aging of the characters ala Jimmy Jones being 13 in season 1 and being 14 in season 2.

Whether you want to use this later method depends on whether you want to do a show with a lot of character development with a fluid status quo. If so then I think a gradual aging would be the best way to reinforce that. This seems to be the method Greg Weisman is taking with Spectacular Spider-Man.

If on the other hand your doing a monster of the week type show where the characters never change and the status quo is etched in stone, then gradual ageing is not your best bet. In the case of the Simpsons this doesn't really bother me as I watch the show more for the individual gags then the story or characters.

That said I mostly prefer shows with evolving characters and story-lines. One of the big attractions of serialised fiction for me is watching characters grow and develop over an extended period of time. So yeah, I tend to prefer gradual ageing, but that's just personal preference and not anything I'd advocate as a universal law.

The flash forward is a completely different kind of animal as it usually means just trading one rigid status quo for another.

[LivelyLorikeet]

Someone earlier brought up Rugrats, which stands as a good example of why animated characters should not time-jump. Before, the Rugrats characters were saccharine and treacly, but they were at least original. Then they became bland and generic after Rugrats mutated into All Grown Up; they became fill-in-the-blank archetypes of every other teen/tween group of kids on TV. It's worth mentioning that I personally felt that Nick should have left All Grown Up as a one time only special. Seeing the Rugrats characters as tweens might have been entertaining once, but turning it into an endless series was pushing it.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Rugrats is only one of two cartoons I have watched that has actively aged the characters, and I thought All Grown Up was horrendous. It was a cool idea, but it sapped away everything we loved about the Rugrats.

The only other show I can think of where the characters visually aged is Avatar: The Last Airbender. But in this show, aging the characters actually makes sense because it is a serial and not an episodic show. In episodic shows where the passage of time is not a plot point, I don't think creators should age their characters just for the heck of it. Like you said, Family Guy would not be the same if all the characters were different ages.

[Movie06]

It depends on the show itself. For example, if you're making a comedic show like Family Guy, The Simpsons or South Park. Then there's no need to age the characters since the show is already absurdly comedic in tone.

But if you're doing a serious action show especially if it's an Anime series then there is a need to age the characters.

But overall, it can go either way depending on the show itself.

[zoombie]

You took the words right out of my mouth. Rugrats is only one of two cartoons I have watched that has actively aged the characters, and I thought All Grown Up was horrendous. It was a cool idea, but it sapped away everything we loved about the Rugrats.



My example that I brought up early was similar for the original All Grown Up concept as a one time only tv special, Caryon Shin Chan and its special episode What If Shin Chan Was In 1st Grade, all of the characters age by one year, and Himawara talks.

[Ishtar]

I think characters aging works better for shows that have a clear continous storylines, like superhero cartoons or anime shows. However, for cartoons that are just one shot episodes like the Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy, Ed, Edd N Eddy, etc., keeping the characters the same age works.

[Starbro]

I think characters aging works better for shows that have a clear continous storylines, like superhero cartoons or anime shows. However, for cartoons that are just one shot episodes like the Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy, Ed, Edd N Eddy, etc., keeping the characters the same age works.

I agree with this. Shows done in a serial or episodic fashion can allow their characters to age, as it ties in the progression of the overall story, but shows with stand-alone plots and stories, like many comedies, especially the ones which don't even offer continuity between individual episodes, don't require such things.

[FGfan]

If u ask me, it really depends on the type of series.

For me, Death Note was good up until
L died.

Then it gets repetitive and boring for almost the entirety of the whole "future" angle.

On the other hand, JLU's Epilogue's portrayal of Batman's future was quite interesting. Batman's time is coming, and Terry as an adult was neat to see.

[defunctzombie]

In general, I say no. One example that comes to mind is the episode of Powerpuff Girls where they were teenagers. The girls were boy-crazy and nothing else. A show like that loses all of its charm when you do that. What they did with Rugrats is another good example.

[EJLD4Ever]

I'll tell you one place the "aging" concept would have never worked (IMO) was Codename: Kids Next Door. Considering the KND's "12 or under" (and immediate decommisioning at age 13) requirement, the series would have lasted no more than 3 years, when as it turns out, the series lasted 6!

However, the aging concept came in handy for the finale, when the now-grown operatives (live-action versions of them, might I add!) are interviewed for a memoir of their last mission.