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    Human Resource Department    True Character ages. as of 2011 season 6 « previous next »
Author Topic: True Character ages. as of 2011 season 6  (Read 4426 times)
Pages: [1] 2 Print
satyb0y
Poppler
*
« on: 10-06-2011 19:13 »

As of season 6 if you truly watch them. They show the year which is 3011... so this is their current ages...
Philip J Fry - 37 (Born in 1974)
Turanga Leela- 38 ( a year older than Fry)
Bender B Rodriguez- Head- 1067 Body- 15
Amy Wong - 32
Professor Hubert Farnsworth- 170 ( Born 2841 )
Hermes Conrad - 54
Dr. John Zoidberg - 150 ( 20 years younger than Farnsworth )
If you can prove otherwise besides any of these incorrect websites that have not updated since the show was cancelled than please do so. smile
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #1 on: 10-06-2011 19:20 »

No way is Hermes 54. However, we have discussed that there are treatments in the future that make you look/feel younger, maybe Hermes has taken one of those... tongue
Inquisitor Hein
Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #2 on: 10-06-2011 19:22 »

Philip J Fry, Bender, Farnsworth : Two times as old as the universe and a bit wink
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #3 on: 10-06-2011 19:31 »

As of season 6 if you truly watch them. They show the year which is 3011... so this is their current ages...
Philip J Fry - 37 (Born in 1974)
Turanga Leela- 38 ( a year older than Fry)
Bender B Rodriguez- Head- 1067 Body- 15
Amy Wong - 32
Professor Hubert Farnsworth- 170 ( Born 2841 )
Hermes Conrad - 54
Dr. John Zoidberg - 150 ( 20 years younger than Farnsworth )
If you can prove otherwise besides any of these incorrect websites that have not updated since the show was cancelled than please do so. smile


I'm afraid that those ages are way off base. The characters don't age accordingly with the times changing - it's a sliding timeline like on 'The Simpsons'. David X. Cohen confirmed this in some interviews.

And even if that wasn't the case, Bender would be FAR older than that due to the events of Bender's Big Score. His age isn't possible to calculate.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #4 on: 10-06-2011 19:39 »

Zoidberg is nowhere near 150.  He is at least 86, though.
Christopher

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #5 on: 10-06-2011 19:44 »

Amy is so old frown It makes me sad
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #6 on: 10-07-2011 01:38 »

Add a couple of hundred thousand years to Bender's age.
Frida Waterfall

Professor
*
« Reply #7 on: 10-07-2011 03:16 »

I'm more positive than a home pregnancy test that Leela is a year younger than Fry, not a year older (biologically speaking). In "Brannigan Begin Again", she claims she doesn't want to die at the age of 25 (however some fans think that she is fibbing), and "Brannigan Begin Again" must take place after July as the end of the first season showed Gunther, Fry, and Amy attending Mars University, and right after that episode was "A Head in the Polls".
spira

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #8 on: 10-07-2011 03:25 »

David X. Cohen confirmed this in some interviews.

Ooh, do you have any quotes/details/links? Cos I remember we had a thread about aging on the show. On Simpsons obviously they don't age, but on the Simpsons they don't ever mention what year it is, like they do on Futurama. So it's hard to really know what they're trying to do with the ages.

But it seems like none of them have aged since the early seasons. Cubert's still a kid. How do we know Leela's a year older than Fry? And where did Amy being five years younger than Fry come from?
Frida Waterfall

Professor
*
« Reply #9 on: 10-07-2011 03:33 »
« Last Edit on: 10-07-2011 03:38 »

Ooh, do you have any quotes/details/links? Cos I remember we had a thread about aging on the show. On Simpsons obviously they don't age, but on the Simpsons they don't ever mention what year it is, like they do on Futurama.

Well, actually, one of the recent episodes, "That 90's Show", did a flashback claiming that Bart wasn't conceived until the end of the decade (they refer to excitedly anticipating the 2000 Sydney Olympics). Kicks continuity right in the groin- in the episode "Lisa's First Word" Marge went into labor with Lisa during the 1984 Olympics... and yeah, Bart is supposed to be older than Lisa. So... basically all The Simpsons episodes after and including "The Principal and the Pauper" are not canon to the classic "Simpsons" fans.

Cubert and Dwight are still portrayed as pre-teens. I think they turned 13 in "Bender Should Not Be Allowed on TV" (well, Cubert was in the process of being conceived, I don't think he was yet injected into the Clone-o-Mat). The orphans seem to have actually almost shrunk, but that could be attributed to poor nutrition. I find it hard to reason that Cubert and Dwight are twenty years old- but you could always say they're going to hit puberty really late. In fact, maybe Dwight is reaching his maximum height- Hermes is only a little bit taller than him.
NastyInThePasty

Professor
*
« Reply #10 on: 10-07-2011 04:22 »

Amy is so old frown It makes me sad

Amy is five years younger than me. mad
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #11 on: 10-07-2011 05:29 »

David X. Cohen confirmed this in some interviews.

Ooh, do you have any quotes/details/links? Cos I remember we had a thread about aging on the show. On Simpsons obviously they don't age, but on the Simpsons they don't ever mention what year it is, like they do on Futurama. So it's hard to really know what they're trying to do with the ages.

But it seems like none of them have aged since the early seasons. Cubert's still a kid. How do we know Leela's a year older than Fry? And where did Amy being five years younger than Fry come from?

http://www.ugo.com/tv/futurama-david-x-cohen-interview-1?cmpid=rss-tv

And also, The Simpsons have definitely mentioned what year it is in countless episodes - even more when you take figuring out the date based on dates in flashbacks and so forth into account.
spira

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #12 on: 10-07-2011 05:39 »

Okay. I don't really watch the Simpsons but I was paraphrasing what I thought people were saying in the other thread. It's been a while though.

Thanks for the link!
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #13 on: 10-07-2011 08:35 »

I'm afraid that those ages are way off base. The characters don't age accordingly with the times changing - it's a sliding timeline like on 'The Simpsons'. David X. Cohen confirmed this in some interviews.

I don't doubt that he did, however I find this somewhat troublesome in a show with such a strong continuity that has always stayed true to its fundamental dates, most notably 1999 and 2999, with events structured pre and post. I mean, I know it's a useful cop-out in cartoons to ignore time passing, but in Futurama it's such an important aspect - the whole premise of the show is built on the passage of time. It irritates me. Obviously there is a sliding timescale, otherwise Cubert and Dwight would be teenagers. I wish there wasn't though. It would be simple enough to explain away the main characters' lack of visible aging through whatever high-tech treatments that are available in the future (which would also explain how the Professor is still alive). I wish they'd just done that. Why not? It's the future! Life-extension is a futurist subject that the show ought to examine... you know, humorously. The gang might forget to have their booster-shot and wake up one day looking their age. I'm sure there's a story in there.
Anyway.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #14 on: 10-07-2011 10:29 »

It irritates me because there's absolutely no reason for the show to constantly be set 1,000 years ahead of us. I mean, they could still have it set in the year 3,000 and things would make more sense, although I suppose it'd make sense for a few years to have passed. 11 is more than necessary though.
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #15 on: 10-07-2011 10:49 »

That also, yes. But I suppose with the year 3000 rapidly approaching, the show would be in danger of becoming dated.
SpaceGoldfish fromWazn

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #16 on: 10-07-2011 22:31 »

So the characters are going to eventually end up in the year 4000 with no chronological aging at all?

Awesome.
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #17 on: 10-08-2011 01:24 »

The Hayflick limit has been extended but clearly not eliminated, otherwise the Professor wouldn't look old.
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #18 on: 10-08-2011 22:22 »
« Last Edit on: 10-08-2011 22:24 »

David X. Cohen confirmed this in some interviews.

Ooh, do you have any quotes/details/links? Cos I remember we had a thread about aging on the show. On Simpsons obviously they don't age, but on the Simpsons they don't ever mention what year it is, like they do on Futurama. So it's hard to really know what they're trying to do with the ages.

Simpsons has referred to exact years a number of times...an early example I can think of being when Homer was on the plant softball team and the team banner said "1992 team" or something like that on it. They don't actually shy away from that.

Cohen addresses the characters' non-aging here:

http://www.ugo.com/tv/futurama-david-x-cohen-interview-1

Edit: Oh never mind, Cyber Turnip covered it.
Ambitious misunderstood

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #19 on: 10-08-2011 22:52 »

It irritates me because there's absolutely no reason for the show to constantly be set 1,000 years ahead of us. I mean, they could still have it set in the year 3,000 and things would make more sense, although I suppose it'd make sense for a few years to have passed. 11 is more than necessary though.

I agree. I don't see why they should need so much time for the events portrayed in the show to be credible. Two or three years seem credible. More than ten is completely over the top and actually annoys me. They just cause logical flaws that way - which could be easily avoided.

Amy is so old frown It makes me sad

Amy is five years younger than me. mad

Howdy! This is the Grim Reaper Sunset Squad Bot, where can we pick you up?
jeepdavetj

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #20 on: 10-09-2011 05:06 »

Well, could it be that in the future, the speed that the earth circles has increased by a fairly good, but non earth destroying amount, its rotation around the sun, thus resulting in a shorter year now. So while we would see it as 11 years NOW, 11 years in 3011 could be no more than, say, 4 or so. Thus resulting in people living "much longer" when in reality the earth simply goes through the motions that much quicker.




I know, ya gotta toss a lot of science out to make this work. But it's all my very tired self could come up with.
Frida Waterfall

Professor
*
« Reply #21 on: 10-09-2011 07:01 »

Well, could it be that in the future, the speed that the earth circles has increased by a fairly good, but non earth destroying amount, its rotation around the sun, thus resulting in a shorter year now. So while we would see it as 11 years NOW, 11 years in 3011 could be no more than, say, 4 or so.

I blame it on a lack of radiation.
Zmithy

Professor
*
« Reply #22 on: 10-14-2011 23:07 »

Don't forget, the entire crew lost a random and undetermined number of years in "Teenage mutant Leela's Hurdles".

That episode provides a good enough in-universe reason to explain away the lack of visible aging.
Demeter

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #23 on: 10-16-2011 13:01 »

Not to mention "Rebirth" in general. That could have arguably 'reset' their age to where they were at the start of the first series.
Inquisitor Hein
Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #24 on: 10-16-2011 13:26 »

Not to mention "Rebirth" in general. That could have arguably 'reset' their age to where they were at the start of the first series.

Good point. We'd have to know wether the intact heads did keep their original age (with the body "being added"), or if the crew's remains were completely "redone" in the stem cell brew.
freddo

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #25 on: 10-22-2011 12:19 »

what about fry?
he was 25 when he "fell" into the cryogenics chamber and was frozen for a thousand years and half a day.
that would make him 1025.
but then he went back to the year 2000 in benders big score.
that was in 3006, that would make him 1031
then he travelled back to the year 3006 which woult overall make him 2031.
and then we have the lapsed time of the new seasons.
i would estimate he would be around 2033.
Inquisitor Hein
Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #26 on: 10-22-2011 15:51 »

Well..that's probably the reason they did not put Fry and Leela together permanently in season 6: The writers just could not find a proper "age difference" joke...big grin
jeepdavetj

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #27 on: 10-22-2011 20:41 »

And let's not forget TLPJF situation. Bender, Fry, and Farnsworth are eons old.
Inquisitor Hein
Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #28 on: 10-22-2011 20:47 »
« Last Edit on: 10-22-2011 20:49 »

Yep, been thinking about that, but I am not quite sure if this can count:

- In SP3000, Fry remained in the real world, where he did spend 1000 years. Time was not acellerated for him.
- In TLPJF, Fry was in the time machine, and only a few minutes passed for him. He was not frozen for eons.

Hm..probably depends wether you go for the biological or the calculated age (Time today - Time he was born). Regarding the later, it wil be the eons.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #29 on: 10-23-2011 01:19 »

Yeah, technically speaking, people clock up an age whilst in a cryogenic tube, but they don't age biologically.

As for the time machine, they don't age either biologically or technically because they exist outside of time as the rest of the world knows it. They'll age as much as they experience time passing.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #30 on: 10-23-2011 01:19 »
« Last Edit on: 10-23-2011 01:20 »

EDIT: Accidental double post and I can't figure out how to delete the second one.
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #31 on: 10-23-2011 01:46 »

EDIT: Accidental double post and I can't figure out how to delete the second one.

You can't, only mods can.
spira

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #32 on: 10-23-2011 03:06 »

Plus Roswell. Fry's actual age is a bit of a doozy to figure out (and considering Roswell, Bender's head is older than his body or something, not that this is significant after TLPJF). And as Demeter said, Rebirth could have canceled the whole sum of that. I don't think the writers create these plots to keep their ages ambiguous, but it's certainly a nice side effect.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #33 on: 10-23-2011 16:47 »

It's just as significant after The Late Philip J. Fry as it was before it. That episode doesn't have any impact on the character ages except that Fry, Professor and Bender age maybe a few hours ahead of their Planet Express counterparts whilst they're off exploring the future.
jeepdavetj

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #34 on: 10-23-2011 16:58 »

Huh? I figured since they didn't actually return to their own time/universe that it would advance the age of the character. I men I get it that if you went to the future and then BACK to the time you left you wouldn't age. And for all intents they didn't physically age at all. But they watch a couple versions of the universe happen so I gotta figure that if fry was born in 20th century universe 1 and is now living int 30th century universe 3 then it adds up. Not that anyone could ever figure it out, but it does add up right?
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #35 on: 10-23-2011 20:31 »

Plus there's the affects of the Time Sphere, going back 19 seconds, etc.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #36 on: 10-23-2011 23:33 »

Huh? I figured since they didn't actually return to their own time/universe that it would advance the age of the character. I men I get it that if you went to the future and then BACK to the time you left you wouldn't age. And for all intents they didn't physically age at all. But they watch a couple versions of the universe happen so I gotta figure that if fry was born in 20th century universe 1 and is now living int 30th century universe 3 then it adds up. Not that anyone could ever figure it out, but it does add up right?

It wouldn't make any difference if they went back to their original point in time/space or not.

They didn't exist for 3 universes' worth of time. They skipped out the middle parts.

Imagine that I want to record a 3-hour film off the TV, but my VHS tape is only 1-hour long so I record the first 20 minutes, then a selection of quick scenes I like from the middle and then the final 20 minutes. That version of the film is what Fry and co would experience of the universes.
Each time they step into the time machine, they're operating on a different time-line to the rest of the world. It's not a case of when they step out of it, they've existed for all of that time, rather, they've jumped forwards.

So yeah, beyond the time they experienced whilst they were off in the future (which I don't think was meant to be too long seeing as we saw no sign of them eating and so forth - it probably only felt like several hours for them), they're the same age as when they left.
jeepdavetj

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #37 on: 10-24-2011 03:18 »

I got that biowise they are the same basic age. Think of it this way, Fry was born in 1975. He basically stepped out of time when he was frozen (or say he stepped into a time machine). So in 3011 he is 36 years old physically but based on his creation date he is 1036. I know I'm splitting hairs but look at it this way, I take a 1975 Chevy Vega, I seal it in a perfect vaccum and store it for a 1000 years. The car is preserved perfectly. It has not physically aged. So it is basically a brand new car a 1000 years later, but it is still a 1000 years old.
spira

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #38 on: 10-24-2011 03:46 »

So, with that analogy, Fry's a 1036-year-old (or whatever) who functions like a 36-year-old. That's the simplest way I guess it can be said.

I just thought the TLPJF stuff counted cos he's now technically in a different universe, but it makes sense that only the cryogenic tube counts. Because he was physically present on Earth for the 1000 years that he was frozen, but he was in some other dimension or something while traveling.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #39 on: 10-24-2011 18:29 »

Yes, exactly.

He's still frozen, existing in time, and thus technically aging when he's frozen cryogenically.

But in The Late Philip J. Fry, he's not existing in time normally, he's existing independently of time - or at least, independently of the rest of time as perceived on Earth by everybody else.
Pages: [1] 2 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 0.176 seconds with 17 queries.