Milk Chocolate, White Chocolate, Dark Chocolate: Pick your favorite!


Beauty and the Beast’s Secret Villain Revisited: What About Chip?

March 21st, 2013 . by Tim Babb (TANcast's #1 Host/Editor Fan)

A few days ago, I wrote a blog about how I think the Enchantress from Beauty and the Beast is actually an evil, evil witch. I was super proud of myself and my analysis until I read a comment from Jesus:

BTW, was chip BORN a cup?! Ten years, their human bodies didn’t age, so we can assume chip was either born a cup or was already a 10 year old boy. Also, there were other living teacups, were they children too? How many kids did Mrs. Potts have?!

Oh my lord…Chip!

What could I have done to deserve this?

This may be the most acute case of fridge horror ever. That’s a little kid…transformed into a cup. Jesus says the human bodies don’t age during the spell, but the Beast looks way older than 11 when he turns back into a regular dude. I must assume then that their bodies have indeed aged while cursed. That leaves three possible scenarios to explain Chip…all of them bad…

Best Case Scenario:
Chip was conceived, carried to term, and birthed AFTER the curse was placed on the castle. So Mrs. Potts somehow found a way to get her freak on while in tea pot form…and somehow that unholy union made a child. Who would the father be? One of the beer steins? What do you cross with a tea pot to make a tea cup? I really don’t want to think about this scenario too long.

Slightly Worse Case Scenario:
Mrs. Potts was pregnant at the time of the curse. Not only does this scenario add the twisted element of the Enchantress putting a spell on a pregnant lady, it still has the element of Mrs. Potts giving birth…as a tea pot. The mind boggles. How would it…? Where would it…? But as Jesus mentioned…Chip is not the only child/cup in the movie. So it’s not likely either of these scenarios is right. Which only leaves…

Worst Case Scenario:
Let’s say Chip is around 11 years old, so he was born before the curse. Which means the Enchantress cursed a baby to a possible lifetime as drink wear. I thought it was bad to put a curse on an 11 year old boy, but what kind of heartless, magical skank puts a curse on a BABY?! Maybe you could argue that somehow ALL the adult servants should have made the prince less selfish, but what was the baby supposed to do? And the other cups were probably a little older than chip, but not by a lot. Which means they must have been very young children when the curse hit. I have an almost 2 year old, I don’t have the first idea how I would explain to him if he, his mother and I all got changed into flatware tomorrow. Here’s what I DO know, he wouldn’t understand it even if I did. We haven’t been able to convince him not to grab at his dirty diapers while we’re changing him yet…you think he’s gonna understand this total shift in his physical state..and the physical state of everyone he knows? He’s probably going to wonder where mommy is and why this tea pot has her voice. Unfortunately, mommy can’t pick him up to comfort him…because she has NO FRIGGIN’ ARMS!!!

“There, there, son. Let mommy comfort you by rubbing her huge nose on you.”

Even if we take the Enchantress at her word…that she’s not a purely evil pile of devil hate that throws around curses for fun and actually wanted to change the Beast for the better with her spell…She just made the problem worse. Those kids are scared for life! When they grow up, they are going to make Gaston look like a model citizen. There is at least one future serial killer in that cupboard.

Oh Jesus, what hell hath this Enchantress wrought upon us? God help us all.

I’m coming for your babies!!!

6 Responses to “Beauty and the Beast’s Secret Villain Revisited: What About Chip?”

  1. Jesus (LoboMaloArte)No Gravatar Says:

    You know, growing up, I always thought that Chip was an only child so….yeah there’s no good way this might end. I’m just gonna go with that Christmas movie to go with the time problem, as for the Chip situation…..I think I opened up Pandora’s Box on that one. Sorry.

  2. PatriciaNo Gravatar Says:

    The beast wasn’t a object so of course he aged.

  3. peperamiNo Gravatar Says:

    The Beast being a living creature does age throughout the film. The other secondary characters are all transformed into (usually) inanimate objects. non living, non aging things. as these objects do not age neither does the cursed staff. my biggest problem is the age of mrs potts. she looks about 60 in the film and chip is what, 10? so lets say she was 50 when she had him. way too old, and who the hell is the dad? I also assume that all of the other cups were originally just cups but the curse brought them to life. whats nasty is that after having been given awareness, after the curse they just go back to being dead, lifeless cups

  4. Caroline PatalinghugNo Gravatar Says:

    i was JUST thinking about this… ugh 🙁

  5. BiancaNo Gravatar Says:

    I fully agree with this article, except for the age thing. I don’t know why everyone gets so hung up over that single line. My own logic is that the enchantress deliberately slowed down time when she cursed the castle. Yes, she is a wicked witch and the true villain of the movie – I’ve said this for years! – but even “wicked deals” of this kind often have oddly benevolent clauses because wicked spirits are supposed to be fickle and unpredictable when playing with the fates of mortals. From the stained-glass windows shown in the intro, we can CLEARLY see the Prince was not an 11-year old child, but at least a youth. The painting he rips up shows a teenager, and the painter clearly had a live model.

    The Prince was not a child when this happened. Calm your tits.

    Not that it makes what the enchantress did any less vindictive, random and evil.

    Here’s my theory: The Prince was 16 when he was cursed, which would match up with the age he’s shown prior to the movie’s actual start. The enchantress didn’t STOP time, but she slowed it down, perhaps to give the Prince more time to find love (again: Spirits are vindictive, but unpredictable in their mercies) In real time, that would give him five years, but Lumiere speaks of ten years because they live in a bubble of slowed time (perhaps they’re even unaware of this) This would ALSO somewhat explain why everyone outside is so unaware of the castle.

  6. TyciolNo Gravatar Says:

    Prince was 11. Artwork often draws child monarchs looking more mature to build confidence. You see he was 11 in Christmas sequel.

    The theory the in animates did not age can work though. In that case Chip and Adam were about the same age, sort of like Lion-o and the Thunderkittens, but only the monarch boy got older.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags in your comments:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>