Qubert and Hermes son ages.

[on:]

It was stated at the end of Bender's big score that it was 3008 and next week it is now 3012 and Qubert and Hermes son haven't aged at all.

What's up with that???

[Reply #1 on:]

None of the orphans have aged either.

But it does seem strange. The writers have managed to keep track of the Professor's age, but Dwight, Cubert (no Q by the way), and the orphans are still young. Furthermore, Dwight and Cubert clearly had their 13th birthdays during "Bender Should not be allowed on TV". This didn't stop Bender from referring to Cubert as a 12-year-old during Overclockwise (which is set nearly a decade after).

Right now, it's a big plot-hole. It might be interesting if the writers tried to cover the mess up with some scientific nonsense though.

[Reply #2 on:]

Futurama, sister show of the Simpsons where Bart, Lisa, and Maggie haven't aged in over 20 years! I'm not really gonna bat my eye at Cubert and Dwight's lack of aging.

[Reply #3 on:]

It's different on Futurama,  because the characters have chronological ages on here.  I can't imagine why Hermes and LeBarbs would want their son to stay 13 for ten years. 

[Reply #4 on:]

It's already been stated (somewhere and I'm too lazy to go find it) that the characters are not aging because the writers are too lazy to keep track of it, and think that it's more fun to have a cast with certain defined ages that they don't have to worry about changing or the effects thereof on the dynamic.

None of the orphans have aged either.

But it does seem strange. The writers have managed to keep track of the Professor's age

He was 169. In the 12 years since, he's had a single birthday. As have a number of other characters. Your statement makes as much sense as a mongoose that has been trained to spot people who have raspberry jam on their testicles.

[Reply #5 on:]

It's already been stated (somewhere and I'm too lazy to go find it) that the characters are not aging because the writers are too lazy to keep track of it, and think that it's more fun to have a cast with certain defined ages that they don't have to worry about changing or the effects thereof on the dynamic.

None of the orphans have aged either.

But it does seem strange. The writers have managed to keep track of the Professor's age

He was 169. In the 12 years since, he's had a single birthday. As have a number of other characters. Your statement makes as much sense as a mongoose that has been trained to spot people who have raspberry jam on their testicles.

He had his 160th birthday in "A Clone of My Own".

In "The Prisoner of Benda", he says to Amy: "As a man enters his 18th decade, he thinks back on the mistakes he's made in life." 18th decade= 170's. So yes, the writers have kept track of his age.

[Reply #6 on:]

Hm. They're not supposed to have. That's somewhat irritating.

[Reply #7 on:]

"This mildly displeases me."

All the characters have defined ages.  I find it confusing in that they don't seem to change, maturity wise or physically, and the kid characters stay... kids.  The only character who seems to have aged a bit is Amy, whose gone from seemingly being in her late teens to having a doctorate and getting married.  

I just pretend to myself that Fry and Leela are still in their mid twenties, Amy is about 22/23, Hermes is in his early forties and the Prof is impossibly ancient.   It's easier for my sanity to ignore their chronological ages.  

[Reply #8 on:]

People age slower in the future I dunfugginknow.

[Reply #9 on:]

Maybe the writers will make up a silly time-hole sort of explanation in which the characters' kids keep falling into a hole that reverses their aging process until they're exactly where they left off at? I don't know. My only guess is that it presents a slight challenge to age them and keep them 100% recognizable to more casual fans?It's a wildly obtuse guess though.

[Reply #10 on:]

And yet we just saw an episode where a robot aged quite rapidly, from birth to 'manhood' in 13 days.

Whatever.  Robots do everything faster.

[Reply #11 on:]

Is it possible that in the future either a year is shorter or that people age at a slower pace (maybe with all this travel outside of earth)? I mean it is possible to spend 10 earth years traveling space and only age one physical year correct?

[Reply #12 on:]

   And yet we just saw an episode where a robot aged quite rapidly, from birth to 'manhood' in 13 days.

We've also seen a whole planetful of robots make huge evolutionary leaps overnight (and then make no further progress while the sun was up).

   Whatever.  Robots do everything faster.

With their mighty robot powers, no doubt.

[Reply #13 on:]

i just soak all the rama in, like radiation.
but that is pretty weird like the simpsons should have each aged about 30 years.
they have birthdays and yet 10 episodes later they're back to their old age.years pass and they're the same age as 20 years ago.

[Reply #14 on:]

Is it possible that in the future a year is shorter

Well, in Crimes of the Hot the Earth goes farther from the Sun which means a year is longer, maybe?

[Reply #15 on:]

Oh boy, a poppler responding to an old old topic that isn't even somewhat relevant.  How typical  but seriously, welcome to PEEL.

[Reply #16 on:]

Fry and Leela are almost in their 40s and they look like they are in their 20s.

Thus adds to the problem.

[Reply #17 on:]

If we're to believe this show is in a "floating timeline" Cubert shouldn't even be a year old.