fry doesnt seem 25

[on:]

i always think of fry as like 18 or 19

[Reply #1 on:]

its been 4 years so technically he's 28 now. maybe even 29 depending on when his birthday falls.

[Reply #2 on:]

Unless he ended up slightly younger in TMLH.

[Reply #3 on:]

even if his body wound up younger it wouldn't change the day he was born which is the main determining factor of age 

[Reply #4 on:]

if you count the years he was frozen hes very very old!

[Reply #5 on:]

From a chronologic standpoint yes, but from a biologic point of view he's around 28/29-ish (the best age). Also the vents in TMLH would affect his biologic age, as it did for Leela.

[Reply #6 on:]

Actually, using Matt Groenings Simpson aging Factor, Fry would not age at all! which would make him still about 25

and considering how immature he is, he would seem younger, but he isn`t 

[Reply #7 on:]

Actually, in an interview Matt Groening said that the characters in Futurama would age throughout the series...too bad we'll never see most of it though.

Fry's Age: Approx. 1,028 years old

[Reply #8 on:]

i didn`t notice ANY aging at all!, in fact, didn`t they all get younger in one episode?

(i missed the beginning of it)

[Reply #9 on:]

Yes, but they got younger because the Professor ws getting older, they tried to give him a mud bath that would make him younger and ended up getting it on themselves. When I said age, I meant the years would change like professor Farnsworth's birthday in "A Clone of my Own".

[Reply #10 on:]

yeah, but howmany Birthdays did the simpsons have?

in theory, they should have aged, it stopped making sense 4 seasons ago, IM JUST SO CONFUSED!

[Reply #11 on:]

The simpsons are in their own little world there is no need to get confused.

[Reply #12 on:]

yes, but the annimation and the Creator are one in the same

[Reply #13 on:]

Leela doesn't seem 25 either. She's alot more mature, making you think she's older.

[Reply #14 on:]

Those ages seem about right to me. I'm 19 and I never thought they were supposed to be my age. But I didn't think they were supposed to be approaching 30 either. . . hrm

[Reply #15 on:]

Matt or David allso said that they would get older, but we cant see the are getting older.

[Reply #16 on:]

the years progress in futurama. isnt it 3003 there now?

[Reply #17 on:]

 

Originally posted by Grim:
the years progress in futurama. isnt it 3003 there now?

yes it is

[Reply #18 on:]

no in my simpsons/futurama comic it fry says he's from the year 3002 and it was made this year

[Reply #19 on:]

Imagine Futurama would have run for ... 15 Seasons or something, so then Fry and Leela would be 40?

Truly disturbing thought... 

Let's just say they're both Twentysomething.

[Reply #20 on:]

 

Originally posted by Satan:

in theory, they should have aged, it stopped making sense 4 seasons ago, IM JUST SO CONFUSED!

That's more or less what I was thinking when they did the Homer-Marge flash back on one of the last episodes of the season. If you think back to the start of the series, these flashbacks all took place in the late 70s, with Homer having the big sideburns, etc.  Now, to keep continuity, the fashbacks take place around 89. It does seem quite odd, and somehow manages to be less funny as well.

[Reply #21 on:]

 

Originally posted by ooy:
no in my simpsons/futurama comic it fry says he's from the year 3002 and it was made this year

True, but we really don't know where the crossover comic fit in the timeline of Futurama.

[Reply #22 on:]

it would suck if they got older.

[Reply #23 on:]

Perhaps they did age. We do know that years pass by in the show (for example, they refer to "last X-Mas," or "Sept 1, 3002" in "Roswell" ). So, theoretically, the cast would be aging as well.

However, with TMLH, I thought Amy's line "We're all a little bit younger" allowed them to revert back to the age they were at the begining of the series. That way, the writers could milk more episodes out without the crew getting old.

[Reply #24 on:]

Here's the way I see it. Futurama is set so the characters don't have to age. The main characters are all adults so nothing is truly lost with flashbacks and such.

The Simpsons have 3 kids and they lost reality completely when third grade for Bart was "last year" Even thinking along the lines that the eps cover all the days in a year doesn't really add up. It would work, since they only hit 300 eps recently. The problem is that the eps aren't represented like that. They miss major opportunities by not aging the children as we've seen from the various "future" eps. 

[Reply #25 on:]

I think the characters are aging. In Teenage Mutant Leela's Hurdles, it shows that the Professor is 162 at the beginning. However, only four years have passed on the show, which is not enough to really show a dramatic difference in physical appearance.

Also, while Fry is mid- to late-twenties, isn't Leela thirty-something?

[Reply #26 on:]

Simpsons revolves around an american family, they can't get older. The kids have to be kids.

But in Futurama Fry has now reach 28 or 29. He has also reach his sexual-peek. Just so you know :P

[Reply #27 on:]

   

Originally posted by Xmpel:
Simpsons revolves around an american family, they can't get older. The kids have to be kids.

But in Futurama Fry has now reach 28 or 29. He has also reach his sexual-peek. Just so you know :P

Wrong! Men reach their sexual peak at 18! Women in their early or late 30s or early 40s.

Leela is the same age as Fry. Biologically that is. Timewise, he's the oldest of them all.

[Reply #28 on:]

the rule in cartoons: cartoon charactors never die/age

[Reply #29 on:]

Maude Flanders died.

[Reply #30 on:]

 

Originally posted by ooy:
the rule in cartoons: cartoon charactors never die

Would you like a list?  I can think of three right off the Simpsons.

Unless you were referencing Animaniacs, then +100 Nixorbucks.

[Reply #31 on:]

 

Originally posted by Killbot Bot Jnr:Maude Flanders died.

And President McNeal too. 
points at her President-McNeal-site with condolences-book

[Reply #32 on:]

 

Originally posted by ooy:
the rule in cartoons: cartoon charactors never die/age

did you mean to say the main charcter never die?

[Reply #33 on:]

yeah, whatever. unless its a special. maud flanders wasnt really a main charactor

[Reply #34 on:]

The no aging rule is really stupid

[Reply #35 on:]

 

Originally posted by Allen:
...
Leela is the same age as Fry. Biologically that is. Timewise, he's the oldest of them all.

I beg to differ; Bender's head is 1060 years old.

[Reply #36 on:]

True. But when you really think about that, it just doesn't work. If bender had been in the ground all that time then he wouldn't have been outside the suicide booth on new years eve to meet Fry. So the whole chain of events that led up to him being buried in the ground in the first place would never have happened! It's just one of those parodoxes of time travel. Although I like that clever plot twist , it doesn't hold up to any study.
Wait what's this thread about?

[Reply #37 on:]

 

But when you really think about that, it just doesn't work. If bender had been in the ground all that time then he wouldn't have been outside the suicide booth on new years eve to meet Fry

Why?
His head would have been in 2 places at once is all. It's no paradox.

A paradox would be if Bender travelled back in time and prevented his past self from meeting Fry or Fry travelling back in time to stop himself from getting frozen.

See if Fry travelled back in time to stop himself from being frozen, that would mean he would never have been frozen in the first place so he wouldn't need to travel back to prevent this, but if he didn't travel back in time this means he would be frozen and would end up travelling back in time to stop himself from being frozen,but that would mean he would never have been frozen in the first place so he wouldn't need to travel back to prevent this, but if he didn't travel back in time this means he would be frozen and would end up travelling back in time to stop himself from being frozen,but that would mean he would never have been frozen in the first place so he wouldn't need to travel back to prevent this, but if he didn't travel back in time this means he would be frozen and would end up travelling back in time to stop himself from being frozen... Oh crap, I lost my train of thought. What was I saying?

[Reply #38 on:]

If I were buried in the burning sands of the New-Mexico desert I think I'd remember -
 tell it to Ripley.
Death to all humans.

[Reply #39 on:]

 

Originally posted by mikey:
The no aging rule is really stupid

But if they aged normally, Farnsie would have to die pretty soon.  He's always saying about how he's going to die soon.

3ACV03
"I've only got a few years left to live! I don't want to spend them dead."

3ACV14
"I may be an old man...in fact I'm pretty sure I am..."

It's good that they age, because it makes it more believable, but at the same time, they don't seem to age at the same rate as the rest of the world, which means that they don't need to kill off the Professor anytime soon.