Floating Timeline / Sliding Timescale

[James28]

A long-running animated TV series has the tendency to use something refeered to as a "floating timeline" or "sliding timescale". A "floating timeline" or "sliding timescale" is when a fictional character ages little or not at all since its introduction or over a period of time, despite real-world markers such as events, people, and technology appearing in the works and correlating with the real world. In the year of the introduction of the work or the character, the aforementioned markers that appear in the works throughout its run would be considered anachronisms. Events from a character's past are alluded to, but can change from having took place years ago to having taken place more recently.

I do not think any long-running TV series should be given special treatment just because it is animated and uses or insists on using a floating timeline / sliding timescale.

[James28]

Some examples of Long-Running Animated Floating Timeline/Sliding Timescale Shows:

The Simpsons
King of the Hill
South Park
Family Guy
American Dad!

[robyrob]

Gary Marshall always explained away any timeline inconsistencies in Happy Days with the same theory - otherwise the guys would've taken 7 years to finish highschool - it allowed them to tell more stories in the general time period without having to move forwards into the 60's too fast.

- and it never bothered me, as long as it was consistent and the show didn't break any of its own established timeline rules.

[James28]

Long-running animated TV series that use a floating timeline or sliding timescale are terrible. Does animation exist solely for the purpose of satire? Some jabs can be taken to a live-action series by an animated floating timeline series. The characters in the series do not age physically, to if the characters do not age, it'll be harder for them (and probably the series) to move with the times. There is just really no point of having a (animated) TV series become the longest-running of any genre (or longest-running overall) if the characters do not age.

There is really no point of a TV series handling current events if its characters do not age; Real-life current events appearing in the series would be an anachronism; Depiction of the current year in the series would be an anacronism if the characters were introduced several years ago and have not aged at all.

Generally, for a scripted TV series, long runs just for the sake of long runs are not very beneficial. Long-running animated sliding timescale series will make live-action series look like bums. Several scripted live-action series come and go for a few years and we have to be stuck with the same animated sliding timescale crap every time. There's just no defending animated series anymore.

Sad but true.

[James28]

Why can't there be at least one animated series in which its characters did age physically?

[robyrob]

Originally Posted by James28

Why can't there be at least one animated series in which its characters did age physically?

the Flintstones

[MacLeaper]

True, there aren't many but there are a few animated series that have done this. "The Flintstones" is one such example where the characters aged over the course of various series. (Through the course of spin-off shows and TV-movies, we got to see Pebbles and Bamm Bamm go all the way from babies to childhood to teenage years to adulthood and marriage to children of their own.)
Another example might could be "DuckTales" and "Quack Pack", wherein we saw Huey, Dewey and Louie as kids (ducklings) on the former and then we saw them as teenagers on the latter. But that may not be exactly what you're talking about since it's not contained within the same show.
Perhaps a better example would be "Doug", which started with the characters in 6th. grade during the Nickelodeon years and then had them move up to 7th. grade during the Disney years.
Technically, the 1988 Ruby Spears "Superman" cartoon sort of showed Superman aging, during the "Superboy" segments that showed him at various times and ages. (Though that whole segment was treated as a flashback through the Kent family photo album, so that may not be the best example either.)
I think you could probably argue there was some aging within the 1987-1996 "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" cartoon series. We see April changing jobs in the later seasons and the turtles do seem to grow a little more mature and serious. Also, there are references made to the then-newly introduced to the public phenomenon of the Internet. That might possibly be an example as well.

[James28]

I want an answer to this question: Why can't characters age physically in long-running animated TV shows? If characters age physically in live-action shows, but not in nimated ones.

[Wiseguy2]

Originally Posted by James28

I want an answer to this question: Why can't characters age physically in long-running animated TV shows? If characters age physically in live-action shows, but not in animated ones.

A better question is why are you so obsessed with this? The reason most characters don't age in animated series is because they don't have to. Do you really want to see a series with a 30-yr. old Bart Simpson? There are countless live-action series that would have loved to have been able to keep the children at a certain age. So much so that often new children are introduced later in the series. With animation, the children can stay at a certain age while still commenting on current events. It is a perfect arrangement and 99% of the public likes it. Deal with it.

[James28]

Originally Posted by Wiseguy2

Do you really want to see a series with a 30-yr. old Bart Simpson?

If I have to, then, yes.

But I happen to like live-action TV shows better. Can I have input on this "floating timeline" problem from a different user?

Another question: If there was a 10-year-old child in a series that debuted in Year A and that program has ran for 12+ years, and that child remained 10-years-old indefinitely, then wouldn't that 10-year-old child cease to exist in the program's debut year (i.e. be born after the show's debut year)? And would this be a good thing? No.

Personally, I just wish there would be an all-new animated series without a "sliding timescale", so the characters would age physically and properly correspond with the real-life events that can come up during the show's run.

[king of comedy]

Originally Posted by James28

If I have to, then, yes.

But I happen to like live-action TV shows better. Can I have input on this "floating timeline" problem from a different user?

Another question: If there was a 10-year-old child in a series that debuted in Year A and that program has ran for 12+ years, and that child remained 10-years-old indefinitely, then wouldn't that 10-year-old child cease to exist in the program's debut year (i.e. be born after the show's debut year)? And would this be a good thing? No.

Personally, I just wish there would be an all-new animated series without a "sliding timescale", so the characters would age physically and properly correspond with the real-life events that can come up during the show's run.

We had some Simpsons episodes set in the future. The best ones are Lisa's Wedding and Holidays of Christmas Future. They were great and now and then it would be good to see what the family looks like in the future.

[Wiseguy2]

Originally Posted by James28

If I have to, then, yes.

But I happen to like live-action TV shows better. Can I have input on this "floating timeline" problem from a different user?

Another question: If there was a 10-year-old child in a series that debuted in Year A and that program has ran for 12+ years, and that child remained 10-years-old indefinitely, then wouldn't that 10-year-old child cease to exist in the program's debut year (i.e. be born after the show's debut year)? And would this be a good thing? No.

Personally, I just wish there would be an all-new animated series without a "sliding timescale", so the characters would age physically and properly correspond with the real-life events that can come up during the show's run.

You didn't answer the question: Why are you so obsessed with this non-issue? Why now? Animated series for decades have been shown with no apparent time passage even when a major event takes place (South Park: the boys graduate to 4th grade; Simpsons: Flanders' wife dies; Family Guy: Cleveland gets divorced and remarried; Flinstones: birth of Pebbles and arrival of Bamm-Bamm, etc.) Unlike live-action, writers of animated series don't have to make changes that would ultimately hurt the series because of age changes of actors. This is the way it has been and is not likely to change anytime in the near future. Don't like it? Don't watch. Just stop whining.

[James28]

How about also depicting the current year no matter how long the characters stay a certain age? Because there is a chance that certain child characters will end up being born after their show's debut year.

You want to know why I am "obsessed" with this "non-issue"? It's because floating timelines/sliding timescales are terrible, and the animated shows using them are EVIL, and their original runs often have to be longer than those of live-action ones; The Simpsons ran for 26 years while Friends ran for 10. They just want to make live-action shows look like bums.

"Obsession" is an inappropriate term for it. I'd rather call it "Keeping your friends close and your enemies closer". And the "friends", I mean the live-action shows such as Modern Family and Once Upon a Time. They probably do not want to be overtaken by the original run of an animated sliding timescale show. Animation is NOT better than live-action.