DS Forums

 
 

What do you think could be the reason why so many Celebrities passed away this year


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-01-2017, 01:11
WhatJoeThinks
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,213
one or two will inevitably, I'll keep off Twitter that day, Gemma Collins was an incredible genius who touched our lives

Gemma I used as an example, though it does seem quite likely
No, you have to cross your fingers. That's how it works!

Poor Gemma. You really are a monster, you know that, don't you?
WhatJoeThinks is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 03-01-2017, 01:12
shaddler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Station Eleven
Posts: 3,474
Well would say at least over fifty. Im not sure of the exsct figure. But it has been higher than normal. The year that has just gone has not been a normal year especially for the amount of celebrities passing away
You don't know what the amount is, but you're sure it's bigger than previous amounts. What are the previous amounts? Say, each year for the past five years.
shaddler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 01:17
WhatJoeThinks
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,213
Well would say at least over fifty. Im not sure of the exsct figure. But it has been higher than normal. The year that has just gone has not been a normal year especially for the amount of celebrities passing away
Sometimes the correct answer to a question is "I don't know".
WhatJoeThinks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 01:23
owen10
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 30,241
You don't know what the amount is, but you're sure it's bigger than previous amounts. What are the previous amounts? Say, each year for the past five years.
Alright then.

Do you think the amount of Celebrities passing away has been unusually higher than normal or do you think it has been the same like every year. Because i never witnessed and lived through a year where there has been so many well known greats who have passed away
owen10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 01:32
shaddler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Station Eleven
Posts: 3,474
I have no idea.
shaddler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 01:36
SaturnV
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,621
Nobody has shown any evidence that it's any different to any other year.
If it is it will likely be just that there are way more media channels reporting deaths that in the past would have been on page 10 of the paper on one day, if at all.
Also the definition of 'celebrity' now includes anybody anyone has ever heard of for any reason.
Why is everyone obsessed with 2016 deaths like it's a 'thing'?
SaturnV is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 01:38
WhatJoeThinks
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,213
Alright then.

Do you think the amount of Celebrities passing away has been unusually higher than normal or do you think it has been the same like every year. Because i never witnessed and lived through a year where there has been so many well known greats who have passed away
The number of obituaries has increased. That is a 'trend'. However, death rates remain fairly steady (increasing steadily along with the population) and the proportion of people that are celebrities hasn't really changed.

It's a bit like tossing a coin repeatedly, getting 3 heads in a row, then starting a thread about it to question the underlying mechanism. There is none. It's statistically insignificant.
WhatJoeThinks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 01:41
WhatJoeThinks
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,213
Nobody has shown any evidence that it's any different to any other year.
If it is it will likely be just that there are way more media channels reporting deaths that in the past would have been on page 10 of the paper on one day, if at all.
Also the definition of 'celebrity' now includes anybody anyone has ever heard of for any reason.
Why is everyone obsessed with 2016 deaths like it's a 'thing'?
To be fair, most of the ones that died last year were bona fide celebrities. Some of them were superstars. But then, as the trend continued, we got the deaths of the likes of Vera Rubin making headlines. Breaking news on the BBC website, no less! When there's only a handful of people (myself included) who knew who she was.
WhatJoeThinks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 11:06
Turbulence
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Sees me at the tower
Posts: 1,669
There was probably another year like it a while back, only with celebrities from a previous generation. A year like this had to happen at some point. Simply statistics/probability.
Turbulence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 11:44
Hetal
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,250
There's no reason. 2016 doesn't even apply to the universe.
Hetal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 11:56
Leicester_Hunk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Leicester!!!
Posts: 13,021
in 2070 we will be having all the reality stars from today dropping dead, shame I won't be alive, that's going to be a great year
I'll be 97
Leicester_Hunk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 12:11
muggins14
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The Pit of Despair
Posts: 50,130
I'll be 6...

feet under
muggins14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 13:49
Harvey_Specter
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: London
Posts: 598
It's not a question of more or less as I doubt anyone can be bothered to do a tally.

I think the point last year was that coincidentally so many well known and more importantly seemingly well loved/liked people died in the same year.

Not really the same thing as how many.
Harvey_Specter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 16:11
be more pacific
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,034
It obviously is just coincidence. Many of those celebrities had existing conditions. If there is some sort of mumbo jumbo "2016 curse", then it has been in action for many years leading up to 2016.


Besides, 1977 took some real icons too. Elvis Presley, Groucho Marx, Joan Crawford, Marc Bolan, Charlie Chaplin, Bing Crosby...
be more pacific is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 16:18
Eurostar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 51,591
Drugs, alas.

This seemed to be a recurring theme among many of the deaths, people who had taken copious amounts of them in the past or were still on them.
Eurostar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 16:36
el_bardos
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,970
... the proportion of people that are celebrities hasn't really changed.
I’m not sure that’s true. “Mass Media” really began in the 60’s and 70’s, and with it there was increasing opportunity for more people to become celebs. The stars of that generation are now reaching the sort of age where death is becoming increasingly likely. Add in a bit of statistical variance, substance abuse and some confirmation bias… Bingo – 2016.
el_bardos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 20:26
zoepaulpenny
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: the land of the hobbit.
Posts: 8,839
Bowie died of liver cancer, no relation to drugs as far as we know. And no verdict yet on George Michael, though he obviously has a troublesome history with drugs.
To be exact I thought it was pancreatic cancer
zoepaulpenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 20:46
WhatJoeThinks
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,213
I’m not sure that’s true. “Mass Media” really began in the 60’s and 70’s, and with it there was increasing opportunity for more people to become celebs. The stars of that generation are now reaching the sort of age where death is becoming increasingly likely. Add in a bit of statistical variance, substance abuse and some confirmation bias… Bingo – 2016.
I disagree with the bit in bold. We're not talking about the heyday of the silver screen here. I expect that there are roughly as many actors, singers, dancers and whatever else constitutes a celebrity in proportion to the rest of the population as there has been for the last 100 years. Even with the fairly recent increase in the number of TV channels I don't think we're producing a lot more programming. As I write this I've got Star Trek DS9 on the telly, which is about 20 years old. There are only so many circuses you can put on, so to speak, before you run out of punters.
WhatJoeThinks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 21:30
el_bardos
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,970
I disagree with the bit in bold. We're not talking about the heyday of the silver screen here. I expect that there are roughly as many actors, singers, dancers and whatever else constitutes a celebrity in proportion to the rest of the population as there has been for the last 100 years. Even with the fairly recent increase in the number of TV channels I don't think we're producing a lot more programming. As I write this I've got Star Trek DS9 on the telly, which is about 20 years old. There are only so many circuses you can put on, so to speak, before you run out of punters.
The 'circuses' used to be local - with only really Hollywood/cinema (at a far lower production rate than today) before there was a TV in every home.
el_bardos is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:40.