Re: Who would be the biggest deaths?
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2016 12:24 am
Well that's Saturday night in Bristol ruined.Jen Steadman wrote:Zsa Zsa's croaked it, leaving a hole in lots of people's 2017 deathlists.
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
Well that's Saturday night in Bristol ruined.Jen Steadman wrote:Zsa Zsa's croaked it, leaving a hole in lots of people's 2017 deathlists.
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*.Thomas Carey wrote:4/10 for Jim, 0/10 for everyone else. Mental.
Yes. Just found this out myself too and came here to post that!Jennifer Steadman wrote:George Michael! surely one for the top 8.
It definitely gets extra points for being totally unexpected and him being relatively young.Gavin Chipper wrote:Yes. Just found this out myself too and came here to post that!Jennifer Steadman wrote:George Michael! surely one for the top 8.
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.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".
Kurt Cobain the big omission there. I wouldn't have Sinatra on the list as his death would have had minimal shock.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
Yeah fair point about Kurt although mainly for the way that he died rather than on pure talent etc.Conor wrote:Kurt Cobain the big omission there. I wouldn't have Sinatra on the list as his death would have had minimal shock.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
I will give you Bob Marley. But Amy Winehouse was no major shock and she had only made one notable album.Gavin Chipper wrote:Some other musicians that have died in the last 40 years include Bob Marley, Whitney Houston and Amy Winehouse.
Who, Stephen Hawking ?James S Roper wrote:I guess he's never going to dance again...
Good call.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.Gavin Chipper wrote:Good call.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.
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 ... kardashianMarc Meakin wrote:I dont want to sound facetious, but how has her achievements enhanced my life.Gavin Chipper wrote:Good call.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.
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.
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?Mark James wrote: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 ... kardashianMarc Meakin wrote:I dont want to sound facetious, but how has her achievements enhanced my life.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.
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.
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).Jennifer Steadman wrote:Carrie Fisher!!! Surely sneaks into the top 8
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.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).
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.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
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: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.
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.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.
Several? There's one though isn't there?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.
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.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.
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 sayHeather Styles wrote:But do we as a society disproportionately value the achievements of entertainers above those of, for example, astrophysicists? Arguably, yes.
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 hadn't heard of Vera Rubin until today
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.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.
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.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".Mark James wrote: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 ... kardashianMarc 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.
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.JimBentley wrote: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 hadn't heard of Vera Rubin until today
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:Several? There's one though isn't there?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.
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.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.
Agree with this, but even so, she's still significantly more famous/recognisable than several people in your top 8.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.
You so totally have a chub on for the bikiniGavin 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!
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: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).Jennifer Steadman wrote:Carrie Fisher!!! Surely sneaks into the top 8
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.
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: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.JimBentley wrote: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 hadn't heard of Vera Rubin until today
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.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.
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 imputMark James wrote: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: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).Jennifer Steadman wrote:Carrie Fisher!!! Surely sneaks into the top 8
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.
Now we're just waiting for Debbie Reynolds's mother to die. How old must she be? Or was Zsa Zsa Gabor her mother?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.
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).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 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.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.
SecondedMarc Meakin wrote:I think when I analyze some of the saddest deaths from last year , I think one of the saddest was Harambe.