So, we know Beast was put under the spell for ten years, right? And chip is supposed to be about six? So unless Mrs.Potts can give birth to teacups out of her spout, his character is implausible. :D

I know, I noticed that... it makes no sense... but maybe his age froze during the curse? I don't know, it doesn't make any sense... was he born a teacup (the sequel showed otherwise), or did his age remain the same during his time of being a teacup...

^^ I was going to say, maybe they didn't age, but...in the sequel it's showen Beast was a youngish boy at his time of the curse...

but then again, the sequel is innaccurate in a lot of ways. Not aging would also explain why the painting of the Beast looks the same age as the Beast when he transforms. But that would technically make Beast ten years older than Belle, at least...

maybe the only one that aged was the beast :p but yeah it dosen¿y make any sense

Well, I would have said she most likely adopted him or took him under her wing, but you do have a point in relation to him being six and the spell having been going on for ten years.

Of course, as you also pointed out, it's entirely possible that the Beast was the only one who aged under the spell as he was the only one who was still a biological organism as opposed to the rest of his subjects who were transformed into commonly regarded "in"animate objects which regularly do not age as biological organisms do.

It made sense to me because I just figured that since Beast was the only one who remained a living creature, he was the only one capable of physically ageing, so Chip was stuck at six till the spell was broken. Might not be right, but it's what I went with to avoid a plot hole, lol. I think a bigger question is why the witch from the start thought it was ok to curse all the innocent servants, including a child, just to teach someone that being spoiled was bad. Er, lady, isn't cursing innocent little children a tad worse than being a sulky man-bitch?

Yes that does make more sense that everyone else except the beast are stuck as they are until the curse was broken. Beast was the only flesh and blood organism in the castle at the time, so naturally he would age and everyone else wouldn't because they're objects.

I was going to say, maybe the Beast was 21 when the curse was cast, but then again, he has to wait until his 21st birthday for the petal to fall, so he obviously HAS to age. still, though, it doesnt make sense the objects wouldn't age as well.

princesslullaby, to me it makes sense the objects wouldn't age and Beast would, because he was the only flesh and blood creature, a beast can age, a cup can't. Plus, we know the objects must not be capable of physical change, otherwise Lumiere would have died (candles burn down, and his were always lit, so if he were capable of physical change he'd have melted to death. The spell must prevent him from physically changing or by the time Belle showed up he wouldn't have a head or hands). That's why it made sense to me at least :)

You have a great point there Mermaid-Tail, then again you always have amazing comments ^^

no, it makes sense to me logically. It just...i feel it would be awkward, that makes them immortal? and that means that he grows older while they stay the same age, which i feel would be sort of sad. but I guess that makes the point.

I don't think they'd be immortal, I think when he died the spell on the rest of them would be broken, since it's his curse. I guess when he died they'd all either die too or just return to human as they were. Wow, the more I think about this the bigger a crazy bitch that witch seems, lol. All this because he wouldn't let an ugly hag squat in his palace, couldn't she have just given him a boil or herpes or something?

Oh, and thanks Duncan_Courtney. Everyone on this spot is really nice, especially putting up with my incessant rambling.

LOL Mermaid-Tail, you're so funny! I agree with almost everything you've said. Chip is the largest visible plot-hole in BATB! ;)

I don't think they'd die though. I think the Beast would be stuck a Beast. I wonder why she gave him a timeline to find someone to love, especially since you can find love at any age. Wouldn't it be better to just say "you're stuck a beast until you find someone to love who loves you back", with no age limit? she's supporting the fact you have to be young to love. LOL. i'm nitpicky.

if chip doesnt age, surely he would at least mature...yet he still acts so childish and doesnt know what love is...
there goes that theory.

Well you mature and learn through experience, he hasn't gone out or socialised properly since being 6, I can't see how much he'd change between 6 and 10 living as a cup to be honest. Plus it's disney and magic, so it's easy for them to just say him being stuck at 6 meant stuck in every way, including personality. To be honest, I've never put much thought into it. I always just went with the idea that they were stuck as they were till Beast either found love or if his life ended then either turn back or die too. May not be right, but it was plot hole patching enough to get me through the movie :)

I remember wondering about that too. But I'm going with Mermaid-Tail's explanation. Inanimate objects don't age so Chip didn't. Beast was the only creature that was a living organism so he did.

Honestly I'm lazy to read all comments above, probably someone said it... I believe that Lumiere when he's singing about 10 years a little exaggerated.. So maybe Chip's age vice verse can help to know how many ages they were under the curse.

No. It's magic, it doesn't have to make sense.

Nope!Never did!Agree with TigerRanma!

I'm way too lazy to think about stuff like this, lol...I try not to investigate details like this while watching a Disney movie...it IS interesting though...

Just realized how OLD Mrs. Potts is! How is she Chip's mother and not his Grandma? Just plain weird! :()

^ Yeah, heh. I guess she had him right before she hit menopause or something.

^^ lol possibly she adopted him or something? or he'd been abandoned and Mrs. Potts 'took him in'?