• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • General Discussion Forums
  • General Discussion
What do you think could be the reason why so many Celebrities passed away this year
<<
<
3 of 3
>>
>
WhatJoeThinks
03-01-2017
Originally Posted by Pitman:
“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?
shaddler
03-01-2017
Originally Posted by owen10:
“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.
WhatJoeThinks
03-01-2017
Originally Posted by owen10:
“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".
owen10
03-01-2017
Originally Posted by shaddler:
“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
shaddler
03-01-2017
I have no idea.
SaturnV
03-01-2017
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'?
WhatJoeThinks
03-01-2017
Originally Posted by owen10:
“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
03-01-2017
Originally Posted by SaturnV:
“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.
Turbulence
03-01-2017
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.
Hetal
03-01-2017
There's no reason. 2016 doesn't even apply to the universe.
Leicester_Hunk
03-01-2017
Originally Posted by Pitman:
“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
muggins14
03-01-2017
Originally Posted by Leicester_Hunk:
“I'll be 97 ”

I'll be 6...

feet under
Harvey_Specter
03-01-2017
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.
be more pacific
03-01-2017
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...
Eurostar
03-01-2017
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.
el_bardos
03-01-2017
Originally Posted by WhatJoeThinks:
“... 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.
zoepaulpenny
03-01-2017
Originally Posted by davidmcn:
“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
WhatJoeThinks
03-01-2017
Originally Posted by el_bardos:
“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.
el_bardos
03-01-2017
Originally Posted by WhatJoeThinks:
“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.
<<
<
3 of 3
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map