I'm wondering if there should be a change in how we list the characters ages. For obvious reasons related to the existence of the Gregorian calendar, ages are determined by what year the character was born. But David X. Cohen said this in an interview with UGO yesterday:
- Kevin Fitzpatrick: Let me ask you a Futurama universe question that's bugged me in the past. How do you see Futurama's timeline working? I know cartoons, especially the Simpsons, they always have the floating timeline to keep the characters younger. Futurama does something unique. They sort of address it, they keep it grounded that started in the year 3000, and it's now 3011. So is Fry technically 36 but just looks 25?
- David X. Cohen: This is a question which we do debate here periodically, and the practical solution is we now attempt to never refer to how old the characters are, and just act like they're the same age they've always been. So the approach we take is the year is changing, so we always keep it exactly 1,000 years ahead, so each episode we write the plan is happening 1,000 years from now. So we're now writing the year 3012 for next summer's episodes.
- So that's clearly set in there; we're even going to say the 3012 presidential election as a perfect example of that. But at the same time we will not refer to Fry's age increasing. We're in some kind of a surrealism of the show that they're apparently not getting older but the year is advancing, and if you ask me to explain it more than that, my tongue will literally turn into a square knot, so I will leave it at that.
TL;DR: The writers don't refer to the ages of the characters and treat them as if they were always the same age. The only thing that really changes is the year.
Should we start giving the characters the ages they had at the beginning of the series, except for those who have explicitly aged (e.g. Professor Farnsworth)? In cases of time travelers and repeat defrostees like Bender and Fry, we can list "real ages" alongside show-indicated age. While nothing David Cohen says actually contradicts the idea that Fry is 36 etc., if the writers are treating Fry like a 25-year-old slacker, should we do so for him and everyone else? -- DeepSpaceHomer 05:08, 25 June 2011 (CEST)
- They are treating the characters like they don't age, but they are fully aware of it. If DXC was asked how old Fry was, he would probably say he's 36. I don't really see how this effects the discussion - if I'm not mistaken, in the interview they also talk about how there are excuses, like "people age more slowly in the future", they just don't talk about it. - akitalk 14:30, 26 June 2011 (CEST)
- Maybe I just read it differently. I read it as the show exists exactly 1000 years in the future at all times, but the characters don't age, e.g. like Bart Simpson will always be 10 years old even though he was "born" in 1980. In any case, the next question in the interview refers to the Professor's age and states that people in the future might just live longer. So this issue isn't something I'm going to press with fervor. -- DeepSpaceHomer 15:46, 26 June 2011 (CEST)
Since the series will be over later this year, should we change the age template to be what the character's age will be in 3014 instead of whatever the current year is + 1000? --Zenthor (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2014 (CET)