Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    Re-Check/Weird Scenes    Age reversing wrong « previous next »
Author Topic: Age reversing wrong  (Read 581 times)
Pages: [1] Print
jordan05

Delivery Boy
**
« on: 04-12-2005 14:23 »

In the episode teenage mutant leelas hurdles why does fry leela etc ages go back 12 years or something like that were as benders goes back less than four

Also when the professer uses his age check thing it goes down in tenths of a year every second which should mean theyd be in pre life in like under a hundread seconds
Teral

Helpy McHelphelp
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #1 on: 04-12-2005 15:03 »

Here's a crazy theory I concocted a few years back: the mud, doesn't deage you a set number of years, but a percentage.

Fry start out as 27-28 years, and right after he comes up, his age is 14. Leela looks 14-15 too. Amy looks more like around 11, or something. All indicate a 50% loss of age.

Hermes have a son, Dwight, who looks 12-13, making Hermes in his mid-thirties. Half that, and he'll be around 17. Maybe a bit on the high side, but Hermes does look slightly older than Fry and Leela in this shot:



Farnsworth went from 160 to 53, a loss of 66%. Could correspond nicely with him sitting in less-concentrated mud for a few minutes prior to the cave-in.
jordan05

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #2 on: 04-12-2005 15:19 »

thanks but that still dosent answer this..

Also when the professer uses his age check thing it goes down in tenths of a year every second which should mean theyd be in pre life in like under a hundread seconds
Teral

Helpy McHelphelp
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #3 on: 04-12-2005 15:57 »
« Last Edit on: 04-12-2005 15:57 »

Yes it does. The younger they get the smaller the increments get, so allthough the decrease were 1/10 of a year at that particular moment it will be smaller afterwards.

Welcome to PEEL. Enjoy it jere.
David A

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #4 on: 04-13-2005 02:33 »

But, Teral, don't you see that if your theory is correct, they would never actually reach pre life?  If their ages decrease by a percentage, they can never actually reach zero.
Teral

Helpy McHelphelp
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #5 on: 04-13-2005 08:12 »

Yeah, Farnsworth's theory about pre-life is wrong. Considering he's a senile, crackpot inventor that's not suprising. Time he left science to the middle-aged.
Ranadok

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #6 on: 04-13-2005 17:18 »

Or it's very possible that he was referring to life in the womb (which they did reach) as pre-life, though that's sure to stir up all sorts of crazy useless debates.
i_c_weiner

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #7 on: 04-13-2005 17:28 »

Actually, the 1/10 of a year thing isn't all that wrong. When Farnsworth did that, that was after they went in the thingy to reage, but deaged and were now deaging faster. So the Teral Theory of 50% is reasonable and the 1/10 a Year part can fit in as well because of the positioning of the 1/10 a Year sighting, which was after the reage attempt.
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.09 seconds with 17 queries.