c4countdown

Jen Steadman wrote:Zsa Zsa's croaked it, leaving a hole in lots of people's 2017 deathlists.

Well that's Saturday night in Bristol ruined.

4/10 for Jim, 0/10 for everyone else. Mental.

Thomas Carey wrote:4/10 for Jim, 0/10 for everyone else. Mental.

And I've a feeling I might even end up with five, there's always a few significant deaths around Xmas. Can't imagine that I'll be able to match that performance next year, despite undoubtedly being c4c's resident Dr. Death*.





* probably not a thing to boast about really

Rick Parfitt has just passed away, ruining the Status Quo

Also, Carrie Fisher off of Start Wars has had a heart attack.

George Michael! surely one for the top 8.

Jennifer Steadman wrote:George Michael! surely one for the top 8.

Yes. Just found this out myself too and came here to post that!

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jennifer Steadman wrote:George Michael! surely one for the top 8.

Yes. Just found this out myself too and came here to post that!

It definitely gets extra points for being totally unexpected and him being relatively young.

I guess he's never going to dance again...

Was amazed at the amount of headlines that refered to him as ex-wham singer. It desrves a mention but in the headline? Surely his solo stuff eclipsed his wham stuff. It's not like people aren't going to know which George Michael they were talking about.

Well, this was his Last Christmas eh?

Gavin Chipper wrote:Right, I've been to this site to see what it thinks. It has different categories, but I'll look at fame and significance rankings. I've ordered them by fame, but put significance afterwards.

1. Fidel Castro - 51; 506
2. David Bowie - 92; 829
3. Prince - 123; 1308
4. Muhammad Ali - 160; 612
5. Terry Wogan - 1751; 7149
6. Alan Rickman - 2794; 13,256
7. Ronnie Corbett - 10,006; 14,648
8. Victoria Wood - 10,893; 36255
9. Paul Daniels - 11,966; 17,698

Fidel Castro is top in both lists. Paul Daniels is the "least famous", but it's close between him, Victoria Wood and Ronnie Corbett. Victoria Wood is the "least significant".

George Michael has a "fame" rating of 585 and "significance" of 5068 according to this website. This would put him fifth on this list behind Muhammad Ali and ahead of Terry Wogan.

But I can't help thinking that David Bowie's fame is overstated on this list and generally. Yeah, he was famous and everything, but I think he's seen as more "critically acclaimed" and therefore more hyped up more in the media than perhaps he should be. Because I'm going to say that George Michael and his songs are far more in the UK's public consciousness than David Bowie's. Obviously that is a "worldwide" list (with a massive US bias) so it's not exactly what I'm after as I'm mainly talking about UK fame. So although Bowie was British, he had an international level of fame, which lifts him further ahead of some of those other people than he would be on a purely UK-based list.

So really other than "Oh yeah, but he was really big though wasn't he?", I don't see why David Bowie would be immune from falling out of my top 8. And Fidel Castro's a weird one, because he wasn't a "celebrity" in the normal sense, and lots of people were probably barely aware of him but he was obviously very significant.

Or you're just wrong. Get over it. Bowie was huge, a genuine musical innovator who had a bigger impact on the world. He wouldn't be immune from falling from the top 8 but no way would the likes of George Michael be the one to push him out. From the world of music I can only see the death of Paul McCartney, Madonna or someone form the Rolling Stones eclipsing Bowie. Maybe one of the younger stars of today where their age will have an impact on the story, or if it involved murder or something.

I guess if we was talking about musician deaths of the last forty years on impact and shock then IMHO
1. John Lennon
2. Elvis
3. Michael Jackson
4. David Bowie
5 George Harrison
6. Marvin Gaye
7. Prince
8 Frank Sinatra
9. Freddie Mercury
10. George Michael

Marc Meakin wrote:I guess if we was talking about musician deaths of the last forty years on impact and shock then IMHO
1. John Lennon
2. Elvis
3. Michael Jackson
4. David Bowie
5 George Harrison
6. Marvin Gaye
7. Prince
8 Frank Sinatra
9. Freddie Mercury
10. George Michael

Kurt Cobain the big omission there. I wouldn't have Sinatra on the list as his death would have had minimal shock.

2016 managed to squeeze in another cheeky death before its end with Liz Smith.

Conor wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:I guess if we was talking about musician deaths of the last forty years on impact and shock then IMHO
1. John Lennon
2. Elvis
3. Michael Jackson
4. David Bowie
5 George Harrison
6. Marvin Gaye
7. Prince
8 Frank Sinatra
9. Freddie Mercury
10. George Michael

Kurt Cobain the big omission there. I wouldn't have Sinatra on the list as his death would have had minimal shock.

Yeah fair point about Kurt although mainly for the way that he died rather than on pure talent etc.

Some other musicians that have died in the last 40 years include Bob Marley, Whitney Houston and Amy Winehouse.

Vera Rubin, an astrophysicist who discovered dark matter, died aged 88 yesterday. But that probably won't be deemed particularly significant, nor as further evidence of the evil machinations of 2016. This may because Vera Rubin didn't, to my knowledge, either sing or act and neither did she hasten her own death by taking drugs.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Some other musicians that have died in the last 40 years include Bob Marley, Whitney Houston and Amy Winehouse.

I will give you Bob Marley. But Amy Winehouse was no major shock and she had only made one notable album.
I did think of Whitney Housten instead of George Harrison.But as it was a personal list I stuck with George

James S Roper wrote:I guess he's never going to dance again...

Who, Stephen Hawking ?

Heather Styles wrote:Vera Rubin, an astrophysicist who discovered dark matter, died aged 88 yesterday. But that probably won't be deemed particularly significant, nor as further evidence of the evil machinations of 2016. This may because Vera Rubin didn't, to my knowledge, either sing or act and neither did she hasten her own death by taking drugs.

Good call.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Heather Styles wrote:Vera Rubin, an astrophysicist who discovered dark matter, died aged 88 yesterday. But that probably won't be deemed particularly significant, nor as further evidence of the evil machinations of 2016. This may because Vera Rubin didn't, to my knowledge, either sing or act and neither did she hasten her own death by taking drugs.

Good call.

I dont want to sound facetious, but how has her achievements enhanced my life.
Musicians and Actors entertain us.
Apart from Stephen Hawking , any astrophysicist won't hit most peoples radar unless her name is an answer to a question on University Challenge.

Marc Meakin wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Heather Styles wrote:Vera Rubin, an astrophysicist who discovered dark matter, died aged 88 yesterday. But that probably won't be deemed particularly significant, nor as further evidence of the evil machinations of 2016. This may because Vera Rubin didn't, to my knowledge, either sing or act and neither did she hasten her own death by taking drugs.

Good call.

I dont want to sound facetious, but how has her achievements enhanced my life.
Musicians and Actors entertain us.
Apart from Stephen Hawking , any astrophysicist won't hit most peoples radar unless her name is an answer to a question on University Challenge.

Because knowing how the universe works will add way more immeasurably in the long run. Science is about the totality of knowledge working in tandem and knowing one thing can lead to us knowing another thing with direct, detectable benefits but we had to know the first thing to get to the second. Just look at the technology we have that has enhanced all our lives. The attitude of dismissing science and focusing purely on entertainment is a problem. Entertainment is all well and good but at times it's a distraction. One could argue it's celebrity obsessed culture that has led to Donald Trump. Here's a good article https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... kardashian

Carrie Fisher!!! Surely sneaks into the top 8

Mark James wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:

Heather Styles wrote:Vera Rubin, an astrophysicist who discovered dark matter, died aged 88 yesterday. But that probably won't be deemed particularly significant, nor as further evidence of the evil machinations of 2016. This may because Vera Rubin didn't, to my knowledge, either sing or act and neither did she hasten her own death by taking drugs.

I dont want to sound facetious, but how has her achievements enhanced my life.
Musicians and Actors entertain us.
Apart from Stephen Hawking , any astrophysicist won't hit most peoples radar unless her name is an answer to a question on University Challenge.

Because knowing how the universe works will add way more immeasurably in the long run. Science is about the totality of knowledge working in tandem and knowing one thing can lead to us knowing another thing with direct, detectable benefits but we had to know the first thing to get to the second. Just look at the technology we have that has enhanced all our lives. The attitude of dismissing science and focusing purely on entertainment is a problem. Entertainment is all well and good but at times it's a distraction. One could argue it's celebrity obsessed culture that has led to Donald Trump. Here's a good article https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... kardashian

I'm with Marc on this one. Vera Rubin was undoubtedly an important figure within her own field but I think the key phrase here is "within her own field". Whilst it's true that "knowing how the universe works will add way more immeasurably in the long run", there's a couple of related points that need to be considered: (a) we simply won't know what will be "added" until further developments take place, so the extent of her importance isn't yet identifiable and (b) outside of her field, how many people would be even be aware of the potential importance of her work before she died?

Now consider George Michael, who died on the same day. I don't think it's "celebrity-obsessed culture" that meant that his death received a lot more coverage. It's because - by virtue of writing and releasing some of the biggest hit records of the 1980s, which were heard on the radio and seen on TV daily, then continuing a successful career beyond the auspices of pop and then going spectacularly off the rails due to problems with drugs and alcohol - he had far more immediate impact on most people's lives.

It's very easy to decry media coverage of pop culture (and certainly the default position to take for those who like to think they are above such fripperies), but let's face it, isn't it obvious why this is the case? It's not merely because people are shallow, which seems to be the thrust of some of these comments (particularly Heather's simplistic sideswipe).

Well articulated Jim.
And will Carrie Fischer make the top ten.
I guess Star wars geeks would want it so but technically she was in three big movies and not much else really.
Kenny baker was in six star wars films

Jennifer Steadman wrote:Carrie Fisher!!! Surely sneaks into the top 8

Hmm. It would be tight. I don't think she'd make mine to be honest. Also Richard Adams who wrote Watership Down (and from this forum - obviously the same person).

Edit - I dunno. Maybe she'd make it. She's very much a one trick pony (famous for Star Wars and nothing else), but it's a pretty big amount of fame she got from it.

JimBentley wrote:I'm with Marc on this one. Vera Rubin was undoubtedly an important figure within her own field but I think the key phrase here is "within her own field". Whilst it's true that "knowing how the universe works will add way more immeasurably in the long run", there's a couple of related points that need to be considered: (a) we simply won't know what will be "added" until further developments take place, so the extent of her importance isn't yet identifiable and (b) outside of her field, how many people would be even be aware of the potential importance of her work before she died?

Now consider George Michael, who died on the same day. I don't think it's "celebrity-obsessed culture" that meant that his death received a lot more coverage. It's because - by virtue of writing and releasing some of the biggest hit records of the 1980s, which were heard on the radio and seen on TV daily, then continuing a successful career beyond the auspices of pop and then going spectacularly off the rails due to problems with drugs and alcohol - he had far more immediate impact on most people's lives.

It's very easy to decry media coverage of pop culture (and certainly the default position to take for those who like to think they are above such fripperies), but let's face it, isn't it obvious why this is the case? It's not merely because people are shallow, which seems to be the thrust of some of these comments (particularly Heather's simplistic sideswipe).

I wouldn't expect Vera Rubin to get anywhere near the amount of coverage as George Michael, but arguably she should get more than the none that I've seen. It's not all or nothing.

The news also goes on about big stories for far too long. I've said this before, but when something big happens, it doesn't mean there's actually an awful lot to say about it, and they end up just talking crap out of the tops of their heads because they have to be seen to be talking about the big thing.

But I also think a good example to bring up here is Heath Ledger. He was not even close to being a household name, and yet when he died, the news would not shut up about it. That shows a massive bias to "pop culture" things like music and film.

Marc Meakin wrote:Well articulated Jim.
And will Carrie Fischer make the top ten.
I guess Star wars geeks would want it so but technically she was in three big movies and not much else really.
Kenny baker was in six star wars films

You can't use the number of Star Wars films as a metric here! It's four big movies anyway, as she was in The Force Awakens. Anyway... Fisher as Princess Leia is infinitely more recognisable than Kenny Baker, obviously in part because you don't see his face, but also because Leia is a main character and, even more importantly, she's got several unique looks which are universally recognisable. IMO her and Harrison Ford are the two major faces from the original trilogy. Not to mention she's basically the only woman in the first 3 films, so she's going to stand out from the crowd by virtue of that alone.

Star Wars is an absolutely massive, timeless reference point (and obviously an enormously successful franchise) that, like Bowie, hasn't lost its cultural significance over time, and Leia/Fisher is a major part of that; she plays one of the most iconic women in cinematic history with likeable sass (I can't think of any others that combine such levels of ubiquity and badassery - happy to hear any suggestions though). Yeah, that's pretty much her career, but surely it's far more significant to have a big hand in a worldwide phenomenon that remains highly influential and popular than it is to be a more localised presence with limited intergenerational familiarity (like Wood and Corbett)?

FYI Gev, looking at the last list of the 'top 8' that you posted and using the fame rankings website, she would be 6th for both fame and significance. Add George Michael in and she's still 7th.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I wouldn't expect Vera Rubin to get anywhere near the amount of coverage as George Michael, but arguably she should get more than the none that I've seen. It's not all or nothing.

That's simply not true, though, is it? I heard the news on the radio, it made the BBC rolling news coverage and there's articles and obituaries in every major newspaper, e.g. this one, etc.

Gavin Chipper wrote:But I also think a good example to bring up here is Heath Ledger. He was not even close to being a household name, and yet when he died, the news would not shut up about it. That shows a massive bias to "pop culture" things like music and film.

I think that's a very poor example to bring up here. Three years prior to his death he had won a Golden Globe and got an Oscar nomination for Brokeback Mountain, a film that grossed $180 million from a budget of $14 million. In the months immediately preceding his death he had arguably redefined the role of The Joker in The Dark Knight (one of the comparatively few films to gross $1 billion worldwide) and his part was pretty much hailed by both critics and audiences as not only the standout the film, but one of the standout performances of recent years by anyone. Given these things, he was an actor who had - in terms of film - just made his major breakthrough, and then he died at a very early age (28), which is in itself always a notable event. I don't think the coverage of his death could in any way be marked down to pop culture bias.

Is everyone who is sad that a musician or actor has died shallow? No. Is popular culture inherently shallow? Again, no. But do we as a society disproportionately value the achievements of entertainers above those of, for example, astrophysicists? Arguably, yes. I hadn't heard of Vera Rubin until today, and I'm not pretending that she has suddenly acquired unbelievably amazing human status in my eyes. I was simply making the point that these sorts of lists seem to be skewed towards high achievers in a fairly narrow range of fields. My sideswipe was at lack of variety, not at popular culture in itself.

Jennifer Steadman wrote:Anyway... Fisher as Princess Leia is infinitely more recognisable than Kenny Baker, obviously in part because you don't see his face, but also because Leia is a main character and, even more importantly, she's got several unique looks which are universally recognisable.

Several? There's one though isn't there?

IMO her and Harrison Ford are the two major faces from the original trilogy. Not to mention she's basically the only woman in the first 3 films, so she's going to stand out from the crowd by virtue of that alone.

Well, Luke Skywalker is the main character though isn't he? I think Harrison Ford is a bigger face because he's in other big films. He transcends Star Wars. If Carrie Fisher is bigger than Mark Hamill, I don't think it's down to most of the things you say. It's that one main thing that she's memorable for.

Edit - Also, even if Carrie Fisher is second, it's not like it's Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher followed by the rest. It's Harrison Ford followed by the rest, with perhaps Carrie Fisher first of the rest.

Heather Styles wrote:But do we as a society disproportionately value the achievements of entertainers above those of, for example, astrophysicists? Arguably, yes.

Or in a more accurate analysis, no. We value achievements that directly impact upon and influence our lives and it's pure intellectual elitism to pontificate that we should care more about obscure scientists - whose work we are barely aware of - than we should entertainers whose work we see and hear on a regular basis. Especially when you go on to say

Heather Styles wrote:I hadn't heard of Vera Rubin until today

Why not? If you think that physicists and scientific thinkers are given insufficient kudos and coverage, then surely you should be making it your business to find out about them and their work before they die, not after it.

Heather Styles wrote:I was simply making the point that these sorts of lists seem to be skewed towards high achievers in a fairly narrow range of fields. My sideswipe was at lack of variety, not at popular culture in itself.

I don't want to endlessly repeat myself as I've gone into some detail about it in previous posts; there are very good reasons for that.

Another beloved author died....Richard Adams

JimBentley wrote:

Mark James wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote: I dont want to sound facetious, but how has her achievements enhanced my life.
Musicians and Actors entertain us.
Apart from Stephen Hawking , any astrophysicist won't hit most peoples radar unless her name is an answer to a question on University Challenge.

Because knowing how the universe works will add way more immeasurably in the long run. Science is about the totality of knowledge working in tandem and knowing one thing can lead to us knowing another thing with direct, detectable benefits but we had to know the first thing to get to the second. Just look at the technology we have that has enhanced all our lives. The attitude of dismissing science and focusing purely on entertainment is a problem. Entertainment is all well and good but at times it's a distraction. One could argue it's celebrity obsessed culture that has led to Donald Trump. Here's a good article https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... kardashian

I'm with Marc on this one. Vera Rubin was undoubtedly an important figure within her own field but I think the key phrase here is "within her own field".

My post really had nothing to do with Vera herself or where, if at all she should be placed on the list. It was a knee-jerk reaction to Marc saying "but how has her achievements enhanced my life". It's a "what have the Roman's ever done for us" attitude that I see all the time towards science that annoyed me. In hindsight I shouldn't have quoted Marc's entire post, I should have just quoted that one sentence.

I have the greatest respect for a lot of Scientists.
I chose two of the Sciences for o level and I did a project on Marie Curie and the sacrifices she and her husband made.
Einstein was a hero of mine, and the likes of Lister, Salk, Pasteur and Fleming are also people who's work I respect.
I just don't feel that the death of a scientist in the modern world deserves the same attention as an accomplished entertainer

JimBentley wrote:

Heather Styles wrote:I hadn't heard of Vera Rubin until today

Why not? If you think that physicists and scientific thinkers are given insufficient kudos and coverage, then surely you should be making it your business to find out about them and their work before they die, not after it.

But isn't that partly the point? The media - TV etc. - get to make decisions on who we become aware of. Of course we could all go out of our way to find out more about things that aren't put in front of us, but the people that the media do happen to put in front of us start with a big advantage. And yes, the media do tailor their output according to what the think will make them successful, so they are arguably a reflection on us as a society. But still, it would be naïve in the extreme to think that they are passively just producing what we want. They make decisions that could have been made differently, and they have a large influence in who gets to be famous and who we end up caring about.

This, by the way, isn't specifically a commentary on Vera Rubin and how much coverage she should get, but simply that I wouldn't take it as a given that the media get the balance right.

I tend to think that TV news is crap anyway. Even though I'm still pretty lazy and generally stick to the BBC, I find it much better looking at news online. Carrie Fisher died - big news story but it's a single fact I need to know, and I can make do with one news article on it. I didn't watch any TV news this evening, but I imagine that everything else was somewhat relegated.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jennifer Steadman wrote:Anyway... Fisher as Princess Leia is infinitely more recognisable than Kenny Baker, obviously in part because you don't see his face, but also because Leia is a main character and, even more importantly, she's got several unique looks which are universally recognisable.

Several? There's one though isn't there?

This one and THAT bikini (which I assume you're referring to). The buns are her defining aesthetic look imo. Hair buns, that is.

Gavin Chipper wrote:If Carrie Fisher is bigger than Mark Hamill, I don't think it's down to most of the things you say. It's that one main thing that she's memorable for.

Disagree. Luke is kind of a wet blanket personality-wise and I wouldn't say he really stands out in any way in terms of how he looks or dresses. The name of the character is the most memorable thing about him (and, SPOILER ALERT, the fact that he's Vader's son). I guess that's subjective but I'd wager that more people would recognise a pic of Leia than one of Luke.

Still assuming you're referring to the bikini: sure, that was(/is?) slavered over by boys who need to see more naked girl flesh and/or have weird slave girl fetishes - and I think you zoning in on that outfit is saying a lot more about you than about her fame... - but there are plenty of people who love Star Wars and find Leia an iconic character whose genitals are in no way moistened by THAT SCENE.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Edit - Also, even if Carrie Fisher is second, it's not like it's Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher followed by the rest. It's Harrison Ford followed by the rest, with perhaps Carrie Fisher first of the rest.

Agree with this, but even so, she's still significantly more famous/recognisable than several people in your top 8.

I don't necessarily see how it is intellectually elite to argue for a greater range of representation, but I will admit to being a bit of an intellectual snob. I hadn't even heard of Carrie Fisher until the other day, for example. And it wasn't until earlier this year that I found out that Justins Bieber and Timberlake were different people. I could definitely make more effort to find out more about all sorts of people while they are alive. It seems sad that people don't live to see and hear all of the positive things written and said about them after their deaths.

OK. I accept the buns things (the hair!) now that I've seen it again. But the point is that I'm not a Star Wars fan, and I don't remember a great deal about what I have seen of the films. The bikini thing isn't something that I necessarily remember her for, but it's something that a lot of people have talked about over the years, so it's something I'm more aware of because of that. So it's a big part of her fame for people who aren't Star Wars geeks, and it's your wide-ranging fame that gets the top eight positions!

I accept you're probably right about Luke not being that memorable despite his main-characterness.

Probably because Mark Hamill is an appalling actor

Gavin Chipper wrote:The bikini thing isn't something that I necessarily remember her for, but it's something that a lot of people have talked about over the years, so it's something I'm more aware of because of that. So it's a big part of her fame for people who aren't Star Wars geeks, and it's your wide-ranging fame that gets the top eight positions!

You so totally have a chub on for the bikini

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jennifer Steadman wrote:Carrie Fisher!!! Surely sneaks into the top 8

Hmm. It would be tight. I don't think she'd make mine to be honest. Also Richard Adams who wrote Watership Down (and from this forum - obviously the same person).

Edit - I dunno. Maybe she'd make it. She's very much a one trick pony (famous for Star Wars and nothing else), but it's a pretty big amount of fame she got from it.

She got famous for that one thing but she was far from a one trick pony. She was one of the most important script doctors in Hollywood but the nature of that work means you rarely get credit for it. Forget the whole science v pop culture thing, even within the entertainment industry some sections get more coverage than others. Obviously actors are gonna get the most attention because it's their face up there but couldn't you say directors get a disproportionate amount of coverage compared to screenwriters, producers etc.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

JimBentley wrote:

Heather Styles wrote:I hadn't heard of Vera Rubin until today

Why not? If you think that physicists and scientific thinkers are given insufficient kudos and coverage, then surely you should be making it your business to find out about them and their work before they die, not after it.

But isn't that partly the point? The media - TV etc. - get to make decisions on who we become aware of. Of course we could all go out of our way to find out more about things that aren't put in front of us, but the people that the media do happen to put in front of us start with a big advantage.

Well, that's sort of what I was getting at. There's no reason to restrict yourself to the mainstream media these days if you don't want to. For all its faults, the internet ensures that it's easy to seek out alternative information and stories that won't be covered by major news sources. This wasn't so simple even twenty years ago; you'd have to make a bit of an effort. But now it's just a matter of typing a few words into a search engine. Anyone can find out about pretty much anything, however esoteric the subject.

Gavin Chipper wrote:This, by the way, isn't specifically a commentary on Vera Rubin and how much coverage she should get, but simply that I wouldn't take it as a given that the media get the balance right.

This is pretty much a value judgment. I don't think anyone would say that the media get the balance right, but that's because they've got to make a best guess as to what stories their viewers will be interested in. Of course, they have their own prejudices and so on, but that's a whole other argument.

remember gevin's awkward boner from colin? yes, we all do.

Mark James wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jennifer Steadman wrote:Carrie Fisher!!! Surely sneaks into the top 8

Hmm. It would be tight. I don't think she'd make mine to be honest. Also Richard Adams who wrote Watership Down (and from this forum - obviously the same person).

Edit - I dunno. Maybe she'd make it. She's very much a one trick pony (famous for Star Wars and nothing else), but it's a pretty big amount of fame she got from it.

She got famous for that one thing but she was far from a one trick pony. She was one of the most important script doctors in Hollywood but the nature of that work means you rarely get credit for it. Forget the whole science v pop culture thing, even within the entertainment industry some sections get more coverage than others. Obviously actors are gonna get the most attention because it's their face up there but couldn't you say directors get a disproportionate amount of coverage compared to screenwriters, producers etc.

Well being a script doctor can be aligned to being a sessions musician. Sometimes you make absolute crap palatable. For example she worked on Hook and some of the Star Wars prequels. How bad would those films have been without her imput

And now Debbie Reynolds has passed away, one day after her daughter Carrie Fisher. Reynolds often appeared on TV chat shows, where she would usually do impersonations of Zsa Zsa Gabor.

Fred Mumford wrote:And now Debbie Reynolds has passed away, one day after her daughter Carrie Fisher. Reynolds often appeared on TV chat shows, where she would usually do impersonations of Zsa Zsa Gabor.

Now we're just waiting for Debbie Reynolds's mother to die. How old must she be? Or was Zsa Zsa Gabor her mother?

No, we are actually waiting for Michael Douglas to die, followed by his dad to make my predictions come true...albeit they were for next year.

JimBentley wrote:I'm considering about fifty at the moment and it's going to be tough to reduce it to just ten. Also, I think I'll wait until December 31st because some of my choices are undoubtedly so prescient that they may not last until 2017.

I knew I was tempting fate with this, but three of them (Zsa Zsa Gabor, Liz Smith and Debbie Reynolds) have gone already and they were all amongst my top picks. And there's still a couple of days to go. Watch out, Joni Mitchell, that's all I can say (assuming she's reading this and I imagine that...she is).

Has Burt Kwouk been mentioned in this thread? (I don't think so.)

This has got a lot of names on.

The BBC have done another list of TV and radio stars that died in 2016.

But anyway, now that the year is over, moving away from just a top eight, who would actually win overall? I might look past Fidel Castro. Even though he was a massive world historical figure, I think a lot of people were probably largely unaware of him, and a lot of those who were probably thought he was already dead. At the moment, I'm thinking of a toss up between Muhammad Ali and George Michael (who I'm putting ahead of David Bowie and Prince).

I would think that anyone born in the sixties would put Bowie over George Michael.
Anyone born after the sixties will not have Ali in their top two.
I was more upset personally, by Ronnie Corbett dying as he was a comedy hero of mine.

Marc Meakin wrote:I would think that anyone born in the sixties would put Bowie over George Michael.
Anyone born after the sixties will not have Ali in their top two.
I was more upset personally, by Ronnie Corbett dying as he was a comedy hero of mine.

I put Ali because people still went on about him a lot even in recent years. I was born after the 60s, and he seemed to be more in the media than David Bowie, for example.

I think when I analyze some of the saddest deaths from last year , I think one of the saddest was Harambe.

Marc Meakin wrote:I think when I analyze some of the saddest deaths from last year , I think one of the saddest was Harambe.

Seconded