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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Svip
Administrator
DOOP Secretary
|
|
Zoidberg is nowhere near 150. He is at least 86, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frida Waterfall
Professor
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
coldangel
DOOP Secretary
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
coldangel
DOOP Secretary
|
|
That also, yes. But I suppose with the year 3000 rapidly approaching, the show would be in danger of becoming dated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
coldangel
DOOP Secretary
|
|
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-1Edit: Oh never mind, Cyber Turnip covered it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frida Waterfall
Professor
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inquisitor Hein
Liquid Emperor
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DannyJC13
DOOP Secretary
|
|
EDIT: Accidental double post and I can't figure out how to delete the second one.
You can't, only mods can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DannyJC13
DOOP Secretary
|
|
Plus there's the affects of the Time Sphere, going back 19 seconds, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
cyber_turnip
Urban Legend
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|