Spongebob Characters Age Ratings

[Bobsican]

Continued from here

So, it has come to attention that currently we're basically giving Spongebob characters their age based on a one-time detail in relation to IRL dates, but there's some blatant issues as mentioned over there:

• The characters are clearly portrayed with no intended age overall, beyond simply their biological one (say, Spongebob being a young adult)
• The time of the show in relation to real life isn't particularly confirmed either, most verses have their own "time" independant of what IRL is, for example, Mickey Mouse isn't nearly a century old in-universe.
• Closest direct approximation is taking the confirmed age of Spongebob in Kamp Koral (10 years old) then relating it to Pearl's age from there, but there's an obvious issue of Kamp Koral being another universe from the main series to begin with, so to approximate Spongebob and company to around 26 years old is easily questionable.
• The characters don't appear to necessarily age like humans, so even if we know Spongebob is a young adult, we can't really assume he's inherently 20-30 years old from that.

Therefore I'd like some discussion on the matter, should we just rate the characters by their biological age (for example, "Age: Unknown, physicall a young adult"), or come up with some number from other known details?

 

[Antvasima]

Bobsican seems to make sense to me above.

 

[Psychomaster35]

Well, by the first SpongeBob movie which was supposed to chronologically be the last part of the SpongeBob timeline, Spongebob was revealed to have gotten 374 employee of the month awards which would translate to him working there for at least 31 years and 2 months, and since he was born in 1986 and became a fry cook in 1999 (When the 1st episode aired), he would be around 44 years old by the chronological end of the series.

 

[Nullflowerblush]

SpongeBob became a fry cook at 13?

 

[Bobsican]

As I've already mentioned in the OP, we have no reason to assume IRL release dates of stuff directly relate to in-universe dates, especially with there being non-chronologically ordered releases of stuff in the series (notably The Patrick Star Show and Kamp Koral, which are prequels of sorts released way after the main thing, including the first movie).

 

[Psychomaster35]

As I've already mentioned in the OP, we have no reason to assume IRL release dates of stuff directly relate to in-universe dates, especially with there being non-chronological release of stuff in the series (notably The Patrick Star Show and Kamp Koral).

Still though, he'd at least still be in his 30's at by the first SpongeBob movie by his statement of how long he worked at the Krusty Krab.

 

[Bobsican]

Uh... the first movie was never meant to be the chronological finale of the series, so I'm not sure how usable that'd be, I suppose we'd have a minimal in any case.
I'm aware it not being at the end raises plot holes such as what became of the Krusty Krab 2 and Plankton, but it's also stated the series has no continuity either.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

As I've already mentioned in the OP, we have no reason to assume IRL release dates of stuff directly relate to in-universe dates, especially with there being non-chronologically ordered releases of stuff in the series (notably The Patrick Star Show and Kamp Koral, which are prequels of sorts released way after the main thing, including the first movie).

That's disingenuous, if the world of SpongeBob has not established any sort of unique time system, and even goes as far as have the same names for dates (day/month/year), assuming it's any different is the worst proposition.

If the show tries to inform us a date, the Occam's Razor is that a month is a month. I disagree with the CRT.

 

[Bobsican]

Well, we don't need in-universe explanations for everything, some things just are the way they are just for plot convenience.

And even if we go with a month being a month and whatever for the purposes of the employee of the month arguments (which I'm neutral on, I did say it could work as a low-end), that'd still lead to a change from the current way stuff is rated as we'd no longer be headcanoning an age from IRL dates when it's clear the series doesn't work like that.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Well, we don't need in-universe explanations for everything, some things just are the way they are just for plot convenience.

We do when you're trying to claim something "might be different from reality just because it's fiction". No, that's a terrible argument. You don't put a "year" in your narrative and/or story if you're not trying to communicate what they know as a year. Thus, saying "we have no reason to assume" is disingenuous, because we have quite literally all the reasons to assume.

And even if we go with a month being a month and whatever for the purposes of the employee of the month arguments (which I'm neutral on, I did say it could work as a low-end), that'd still lead to a change from the current way stuff is rated as we'd no longer be headcanoning an age from IRL dates when it's clear the series doesn't work like that.

And why is that? Is it because it has contradictions?

 

[Bobsican]

We do when you're trying to claim something "might be different from reality just because it's fiction". No, that's a terrible argument. You don't put a "year" in your narrative and/or story if you're not trying to communicate what they know as a year. Thus, saying "we have no reason to assume" is disingenuous, because we have quite literally all the reasons to assume.

Sure, a year in-universe is still a year in-universe, but this was more-so aimed to stuff like Spongebob being 50 human years in sponge years, which on retrospective doesn't matter much as it was apparently a joke.

Regardless, a timeline in a series doesn't necessarily correlates to IRL to begin with, and so I'd still advocate to changing the current age ratings to something more reliable as a low-end such as the employee of the month stuff in the first movie.

And why is that? Is it because it has contradictions?

Not only the series has a non-chronological release for the most part, it also has next to no continuity for our purposes, so it'd be inappropiate to treat it as such when at that point it'd be headcanoning something against official information.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Regardless, a timeline in a series doesn't necessarily correlates to IRL to begin with, and so I'd still advocate to changing the current age ratings to something more reliable as a low-end such as the employee of the month stuff in the first movie.

I agree with you about that.

Not only the series has a non-chronological release for the most part, it also has next to no continuity for our purposes, so it'd be inappropiate to treat it as such when at that point it'd be headcanoning something against official information.

That's just cartoons in general.

 

[Bobsican]

Not all of them, but it's still a common trope in any case

Anyways, we'll probably be able to just say that most characters are at least about 30 years old going by the first movie stuff given current consensus.

 

[Antvasima]

So have you reched any agreements/conclusions here yet?

 

[Bobsican]

Simply rating most characters as around 40 years old based on semantics from the first movie, in lack of better options.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That is probably fine then. Do any of the currently listed affected character ages in our wiki need to be adjusted, or have you already handled it?

 

[Bobsican]

I'm sure basically all character pages regarding the main continuity would be affected. I'll also note that I'm quite busy lately, so I'd appreciate help on this area.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That is probably fine then. Do any of the currently listed affected character ages in our wiki need to be adjusted, or have you already handled it?

I'm sure basically all character pages regarding the main continuity would be affected. I'll also note that I'm quite busy lately, so I'd appreciate help on this area.

Okay. Are any members here willing to apply the accepted changes then please?