Obituaries

Discuss anything you want.
Post Reply
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 940
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Obituaries

Post by DaMU » Wed Jan 22, 2020 5:18 pm

Jones was a part of my relationship to the arts before I even grokked how important authors were. Loved Labyrinth as a child and was shocked in my teens to learn that the guy who did the hilarious shrill lady-voice on Python wrote the flick. And it was fun to learn later that he was not only sharp as a tack (obviously) but also wrote a couple of non-fiction books on Chaucer. Shame that he's gone.
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 2158
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Obituaries

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:12 pm

I just learned that Kobe Bryant was killed in a helicopter crash. He was 41.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25584
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Obituaries

Post by Stu » Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:42 pm

:(
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: Obituaries

Post by Thief » Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:26 pm

Popcorn Reviews wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:12 pm
I just learned that Kobe Bryant was killed in a helicopter crash. He was 41.
That's crazy. I still can't believe it. I was never a fan, but damn.
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 3129
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Obituaries

Post by Takoma1 » Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:38 pm

Popcorn Reviews wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:12 pm
I just learned that Kobe Bryant was killed in a helicopter crash. He was 41.
Along with two teen girls (his daughter and her teammate) and the parent of the other girl, apparently. How tragic.
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Obituaries

Post by LEAVES » Mon Jan 27, 2020 11:01 pm

There’s an interesting phenomenon with something like Kobe’s death:

Some people talk only about the rich, famous, successful person who is known primarily for being good at a frivolous activity that makes a lot of money (and I say that as a lifelong professional sports fan, but it’s equally true for actors and many other famous people).

Some people don’t feel comfortable talking only about the famous person that died, and so they mention the other people that died (even though nobody reading had ever heard of those people or will ever hear of those people again).

I feel like the second category of people hint at the real truth: it’s not right to focus on the famous person’s death at all, especially if the sole reason you are mentioning them is because of their fame. There are so many people that die each day, many who dedicated far more of their time and a far more valuable portion of their money to important causes that will be unmentioned. If we are going to mention other people that died tragically, it’s not enough to simply spread the mentions onto people that happened to die in the same tragedy. Why not people that died on the same day that lived better lives? Well, that’s not good enough, why limit it to the day of the less important, less good famous person? Why not just mention the best people without reference to the day that the famous person died?

All that leads to the question: If we’re going to mention all of these people better than the famous person, why mention the famous person at all?

That, really, is the question.

Kobe Bryant worked a job, had kids, and deserves to die an anonymous death, like the rest of us. Or perhaps an infamous one, depending on your capability for forgiveness.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25584
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Obituaries

Post by Stu » Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:02 am

LEAVES wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 11:01 pm
There’s an interesting phenomenon with something like Kobe’s death:

Some people talk only about the rich, famous, successful person who is known primarily for being good at a frivolous activity that makes a lot of money (and I say that as a lifelong professional sports fan, but it’s equally true for actors and many other famous people).

Some people don’t feel comfortable talking only about the famous person that died, and so they mention the other people that died (even though nobody reading had ever heard of those people or will ever hear of those people again).

I feel like the second category of people hint at the real truth: it’s not right to focus on the famous person’s death at all, especially if the sole reason you are mentioning them is because of their fame. There are so many people that die each day, many who dedicated far more of their time and a far more valuable portion of their money to important causes that will be unmentioned. If we are going to mention other people that died tragically, it’s not enough to simply spread the mentions onto people that happened to die in the same tragedy. Why not people that died on the same day that lived better lives? Well, that’s not good enough, why limit it to the day of the less important, less good famous person? Why not just mention the best people without reference to the day that the famous person died?

All that leads to the question: If we’re going to mention all of these people better than the famous person, why mention the famous person at all?

That, really, is the question.

Kobe Bryant worked a job, had kids, and deserves to die an anonymous death, like the rest of us. Or perhaps an infamous one, depending on your capability for forgiveness.
No offence, but that strikes me as being a fairly sociopathic response; of course, in a perfect world, every single person's death would receive the same amount of attention & mourning as Kobe's did, but just because that's not currently feasible doesn't mean we should want people to ignore the sudden tragedy of his (or other celebrities') demise. I mean, my Grandma died a couple of years ago, but just because her death didn't get 1% of the same amount of attention that Kobe's did doesn't mean I should want people to not be sad for the loss of him in the world, and the family he had to leave behind. Doing so just seems unreasonably petty and bitter, and while we don't technically "need" movies or sports the way we actually need, say, food, it's the relatively frivolous things that help make life more worth living, and the injustice of the obscurity of most people's passings, or the fact that certain people should be remembered more because they contributed more to society, doesn't mean we shouldn't care about whatever positive impacts celebrities have had on so many people's lives, and should just act like their deaths, in a certain sense, don't have a wider impact on the world, because they do, and trying to deny that is pointless.
User avatar
undinum
Posts: 320
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:47 pm

Re: Obituaries

Post by undinum » Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:22 pm

LEAVES wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 11:01 pm
it’s not right to focus on the famous person’s death at all, especially if the sole reason you are mentioning them is because of their fame.
Is grief a zero sum game? Are we so corrupted by ceaseless commodified quantification of everyone and everything that a greater "amount" of grief for someone whose existence was made visible to a greater amount of people somehow detracts from or invalidates the memory of those who were visible to fewer? Isn't that applying to a mysterious and profound and inherently personal rite of humanity the same facile ethos that governs those "frivolous" activities you're so down on?

It's telling that this conversation, i.e. a critical examination of visible mass-mourning, could only possibly occur in the age of social media. The much more relevant question concerns the nature of a culture that accepts as normal and inevitable the practice of putting displays of grief directly alongside sitcom GIFs and rape testimonials and panda livestreams and chemo crowdfunding campaigns and Oscar predictions and missing children alerts and says these things are all equally worthy of being measured and monetized and mass-marketed amongst each other, NOW VOTE! There is no "right" or responsible use of social media, in mourning or anything else. Every interaction with any aspect of it goes to increase the power and capital of inherently destructive corporations whose only goal is to keep as many people as possible docilely--or passionately, as the market may dictate--engaged with products and services of ever-exponentially increasing strength, reach, complexity, inscrutability, and agency. Anything less than total destruction of the motherfuckers is fantasy football.
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Obituaries

Post by LEAVES » Tue Jan 28, 2020 8:51 pm

undinum wrote:
Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:22 pm
Is grief a zero sum game? Are we so corrupted by ceaseless commodified quantification of everyone and everything that a greater "amount" of grief for someone whose existence was made visible to a greater amount of people somehow detracts from or invalidates the memory of those who were visible to fewer? Isn't that applying to a mysterious and profound and inherently personal rite of humanity the same facile ethos that governs those "frivolous" activities you're so down on?
Grief is an actual human emotion, and mourning is a grieving process. My point is: is there any actual human emotion behind mourning these people we don’t know? I would posit: if you feel compelled to speak about the other people that died that you have never heard of, then probably not. It’s a cultural norm, but not a genuine, necessary expression as a result of genuine, necessary grieving. That is to say: it’s not grieving at all. This, when you say, “Is grieving a zero sum game?” I would say: “that’s not relevant to the conversation, because we’re not talking about grief.” My point is: if you feel compelled to “express grief” about people you have never known and will never know anything else about than the mere fact that they died alongside a famous person for the mere fact that you feel guilty mentioning only the famous person, then maybe you don’t have any particular grief to express, no mysterious and profound and inherently personal rite at all, merely a noticeably strange and actually disingenuous focus on something that is not grief.

As for the cheapening if grief, I think if you had family that died in an accident on the same day as Kobe then you very well might feel like the lives of your loved ones were cheapened by the outsized inauthentic focus on someone else just because they were famous, and in some ways I think you’d be right to feel that way. And the people who mention the other families know this, too, but their recognition of it is limited to the directly linked people who they would never otherwise mention were it not for mentioning the famous person.

If you mourn the famous person and them alone, that’s an authentic expression. Extending an inauthentic one to others is peculiar at best, and if it’s all equivalent then the whole thing is odd.
undinum wrote:
Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:22 pm
It's telling that this conversation, i.e. a critical examination of visible mass-mourning, could only possibly occur in the age of social media. The much more relevant question concerns the nature of a culture that accepts as normal and inevitable the practice of putting displays of grief directly alongside sitcom GIFs and rape testimonials and panda livestreams and chemo crowdfunding campaigns and Oscar predictions and missing children alerts and says these things are all equally worthy of being measured and monetized and mass-marketed amongst each other, NOW VOTE! There is no "right" or responsible use of social media, in mourning or anything else. Every interaction with any aspect of it goes to increase the power and capital of inherently destructive corporations whose only goal is to keep as many people as possible docilely--or passionately, as the market may dictate--engaged with products and services of ever-exponentially increasing strength, reach, complexity, inscrutability, and agency. Anything less than total destruction of the motherfuckers is fantasy football.
A critical examination of visible mass-mourning has occurred in every age, I assure you. I bet I can find it in Aristophanes. To think that humans were incapable of critical examination prior to social media seems odd. Prior to language perhaps. Since then, everything has been available for examination.

As for your comments on monetization... that has nothing to do with individuals talking about Celebrities and the people that happened to die alongside them, so it has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Obituaries

Post by LEAVES » Tue Jan 28, 2020 8:53 pm

Stu wrote:
Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:02 am
No offence, but that strikes me as being a fairly sociopathic response; of course, in a perfect world, every single person's death would receive the same amount of attention & mourning as Kobe's did, but just because that's not currently feasible doesn't mean we should want people to ignore the sudden tragedy of his (or other celebrities') demise. I mean, my Grandma died a couple of years ago, but just because her death didn't get 1% of the same amount of attention that Kobe's did doesn't mean I should want people to not be sad for the loss of him in the world, and the family he had to leave behind. Doing so just seems unreasonably petty and bitter, and while we don't technically "need" movies or sports the way we actually need, say, food, it's the relatively frivolous things that help make life more worth living, and the injustice of the obscurity of most people's passings, or the fact that certain people should be remembered more because they contributed more to society, doesn't mean we shouldn't care about whatever positive impacts celebrities have had on so many people's lives, and should just act like their deaths, in a certain sense, don't have a wider impact on the world, because they do, and trying to deny that is pointless.
Actually, a sociopath isn’t capable of grief, and will express it only to mimic how others behave. I am saying that the social norm of expressing grief about someone you don’t actually personally grieve is strange, because it’s the same thing a sociopath would do.

In a perfect world, every person expresses grief only for those they grieve. Grief is not better because there is more of it or it is equally distributed, it is good only insofar as it is actually authentic and only insofar as it is actually needed for each individual. Any measurement beyond the authenticity of each individual is meaningless. However, if people express grief but clearly don’t actually feel it, it strikes me as a bizarre and inauthentic cultural ritual.

A much better cultural ritual would be for the person who is not grieving to express actual authentic compassion for those who are rather than merely mimicking inauthentic grief like a sociopath does.
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Obituaries

Post by LEAVES » Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:02 pm

One caveat would be: those that are actually experiencing grief will likely express genuine grief for families of the other deceased, but I think what they feel is more authentically expressed as commiseration. I’m guessing that word has its roots in “collective misery”? That’s appropriate and authentic.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2140
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:40 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Obituaries

Post by Torgo » Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:09 pm

So, in other words, "The Galaxy Song" from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life?
Last Great Movie Seen
Road House (Herrington, 1989)
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Obituaries

Post by LEAVES » Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:15 pm

Torgo wrote:
Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:09 pm
So, in other words, "The Galaxy Song" from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life?
I don’t recall the song, but they’re probably mocking the same inauthentic expansion of expressions of grief it would seem from the title?
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2140
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:40 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Obituaries

Post by Torgo » Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:26 pm

LEAVES wrote:
Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:15 pm
I don’t recall the song, but they’re probably mocking the same inauthentic expansion of expressions of grief it would seem from the title?
Pretty much. The song is about how minuscule - and therefore meaningless - life on Earth is in relation to the universe, which means that pretty much all expressions of grief are inauthentic. I mean, how can there be any authenticity where there is no meaning?
Last Great Movie Seen
Road House (Herrington, 1989)
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Obituaries

Post by LEAVES » Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:44 pm

Torgo wrote:
Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:26 pm
Pretty much. The song is about how minuscule - and therefore meaningless - life on Earth is in relation to the universe, which means that pretty much all expressions of grief are inauthentic. I mean, how can there be any authenticity where there is no meaning?
Well, that is a bit different.

Camus comes to the same premise and builds an entire justification for living out of it, and that premise also disregards our instinctive evolutionary emotions which need not be rational. Just because there is no pre-ordained purpose to life doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t grieve. I think all philosophies and theologies are against inauthentic grieving, though.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: Obituaries

Post by Ergill » Wed Jan 29, 2020 1:04 am

Torgo wrote:
Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:26 pm
Pretty much. The song is about how minuscule - and therefore meaningless - life on Earth is in relation to the universe, which means that pretty much all expressions of grief are inauthentic. I mean, how can there be any authenticity where there is no meaning?
Yeah, well I'm sad Terry Jones is dead and teared up during Michael Palin's interview. Meanwhile, if you told me that fifty lifeless galaxies got wiped out in a glorious explosion, I'd say it was pretty neat. My household doesn't have to be the size of the universe to matter to me. Mattering is me-sized.

That said:

https://philosophy.as.uky.edu/sites/def ... 0Nagel.pdf
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Obituaries

Post by LEAVES » Wed Jan 29, 2020 2:09 am

Ergill wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 1:04 am
Yeah, well I'm sad Terry Jones is dead and teared up during Michael Palin's interview. Meanwhile, if you told me that fifty lifeless galaxies got wiped out in a glorious explosion, I'd say it was pretty neat. My household doesn't have to be the size of the universe to matter to me. Mattering is me-sized.

That said:

https://philosophy.as.uky.edu/sites/def ... 0Nagel.pdf
Frankly, that argument is the weakest objection to Camus I have ever read. When your wife dies and you are despairing at the bleak reality of a life devoid of meaning, Nagel suggests that living with irony makes more sense than defiance?

His article seems to be an alternative to Camus only when times are good, and I can think of no philosophy or religion tackling the meaning of life for only the times when life is good.

As to the other point, I agree with you entirely. My only point was that social norms dictate that we treat certain distant galaxies like your household. Those people on the plane that you don’t know are distant galaxies, and there’s no reason to pretend otherwise. If you feel the same way about those people as about Kobe - then Kobe is a distant galaxy, and there’s no reason to pretend otherwise.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: Obituaries

Post by Ergill » Wed Jan 29, 2020 2:44 am

LEAVES wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 2:09 am
Frankly, that argument is the weakest objection to Camus I have ever read. When your wife dies and you are despairing at the bleak reality of a life devoid of meaning, Nagel suggests that living with irony makes more sense than defiance?

His article seems to be an alternative to Camus only when times are good, and I can think of no philosophy or religion tackling the meaning of life for only the times when life is good.
I don't see Nagel as trying to refute grief or despair or defiant indignation as such. If times are bad, then people will feel these regardless. He's asking what metaphysical absurdity means at bottom, with a brief coda explaining what attitude seems warranted to this baseline definition. Far as how it hits us in any given case, that metaphysical absurdity can be spun out of and colored by particular absurdities that are either mundane, funny, or horrifying.
LEAVES wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 2:09 am
As to the other point, I agree with you entirely. My only point was that social norms dictate that we treat certain distant galaxies like your household. Those people on the plane that you don’t know are distant galaxies, and there’s no reason to pretend otherwise. If you feel the same way about those people as about Kobe - then Kobe is a distant galaxy, and there’s no reason to pretend otherwise.
I wasn't hit all that deeply by it, but I don't watch sports, so I haven't invested much time, interest, or emotion in the guy. Terry Jones filled my days with a lot of joy and I felt a pang hearing about his final days and death. So it goes. As for people I simply don't know, I still reflexively imagine myself in the circumstances of them at the end or their family in the aftermath and feel some sympathy. I watched The Look of Silence again the other day and my response certainly wasn't, "Ah, another galaxy, que sera sera." It's not like I'm reacting to the death of my mother here, but the fellow-feeling button is activated.
User avatar
undinum
Posts: 320
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:47 pm

Re: Obituaries

Post by undinum » Thu Jan 30, 2020 4:18 am

LEAVES wrote:
Tue Jan 28, 2020 8:51 pm
Grief is an actual human emotion, and mourning is a grieving process. My point is: is there any actual human emotion behind mourning these people we don’t know? I would posit: if you feel compelled to speak about the other people that died that you have never heard of, then probably not. It’s a cultural norm, but not a genuine, necessary expression as a result of genuine, necessary grieving. That is to say: it’s not grieving at all. This, when you say, “Is grieving a zero sum game?” I would say: “that’s not relevant to the conversation, because we’re not talking about grief.” My point is: if you feel compelled to “express grief” about people you have never known and will never know anything else about than the mere fact that they died alongside a famous person for the mere fact that you feel guilty mentioning only the famous person, then maybe you don’t have any particular grief to express, no mysterious and profound and inherently personal rite at all, merely a noticeably strange and actually disingenuous focus on something that is not grief.

As for the cheapening if grief, I think if you had family that died in an accident on the same day as Kobe then you very well might feel like the lives of your loved ones were cheapened by the outsized inauthentic focus on someone else just because they were famous, and in some ways I think you’d be right to feel that way. And the people who mention the other families know this, too, but their recognition of it is limited to the directly linked people who they would never otherwise mention were it not for mentioning the famous person.

If you mourn the famous person and them alone, that’s an authentic expression. Extending an inauthentic one to others is peculiar at best, and if it’s all equivalent then the whole thing is odd.
A critical examination of visible mass-mourning has occurred in every age, I assure you. I bet I can find it in Aristophanes. To think that humans were incapable of critical examination prior to social media seems odd. Prior to language perhaps. Since then, everything has been available for examination.

As for your comments on monetization... that has nothing to do with individuals talking about Celebrities and the people that happened to die alongside them, so it has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

You got it sho nuff: more rhetorical experiment(/autofellatio) than sober thought, and I thank you for responding to it with more dignity and clarity than it deserved. The sense in which I was using grief was the bankrupt one I goaded another user with on a previous page i.e. that his grief over a celebrity was not grief at all, or at least a degree or version of grief that makes it ridiculous to have gotten so vitriolic and personal over a very tame joke.

To be honest, no, I would not in the least feel like the lives of my hypothetical dead family members, even if we include the few who also count as loved ones, would be cheapened if, say, Angelina Jolie killed Brad Pitt and then herself on the same day. Their "worth" to me is all that I can afford to concern myself with. (And personally, it would be a relief to have would-be wellwishers' attention drawn elsewhere. The idea of people expressing condolences to me makes me nauseous just thinking about it. Of course, that's also part of a whole other thing.)

You are of course correct that my "critical examination..." phrasing was woefully inadequate. I was attempting to convey with all of those modifiers bundled together the way grief is vomited onto the internet so that the rest of the world can pick through and scrutinize the contents, which thanks to contemporary communication models occurs with a ubiquity and on a scale without precedent. With your expansion on weird inauthentic do-gooders I think we are in substantial agreement (as I'm sure you were dying to know).
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3176
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Obituaries

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Jan 30, 2020 7:54 am

I dunno. I find the entire question over who's deserving of a non-anonymous death as pretty feeble. Considering any fellow human being that you may not circumstantially be acquainted with or related to as a "distant galaxy" shows a tremendous lack of empathy. If Sharlene from Tulsa is a distant galaxy, then what would that make a random dog, dolphin or oak? There's only so much universe to synecdocize. Luckily, compassion doesn't have to work on such a rigid and selfish scale.

But, sure, there's plenty of selfishness is the more histrionic and vicarious displays of grief, just as there's the selfishness in the dispays of woke back-patting pushing back against it. I'm not sure how any deaths mentioned in this thread are of the unfamous personal associate variety. (More of those notices would be welcome, imo.) But it seems that many of these entries are about famous people, of varying degree, who have somehow magically made the intergalactic connection of sincere inspiration. Nothing about that, however subjectively affected, is "frivolous". I wonder why, after ten pages of commiseration, someone like Kobe Bryant would inspire the question.

What I am fairly certain of is that when that unfortunate hour arrives for the eventual belltoll of my beloved Kareem, I will sincerely grieve, and I doubt I'll bother to ask social media's permission to do so.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3176
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Obituaries

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Jan 30, 2020 7:58 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jan 30, 2020 7:54 am
(More of those notices would be welcome, imo.)
To be clear, I don't want to see your familes and friends die. But if they do, I'm sure there will be sympathy here.
User avatar
Slentert
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:23 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: Obituaries

Post by Slentert » Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:16 am

Goddammit, Kirk Douglas... R.I.P.
User avatar
Evil
Posts: 421
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:24 am

Re: Obituaries

Post by Evil » Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:32 am

Slentert wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:16 am
Goddammit, Kirk Douglas... R.I.P.
Okay come on now, dude was 103.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1734
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: Obituaries

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Thu Feb 06, 2020 2:02 am

maybe now we will find out if that Natalie Wood story is true or not :shifty:
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25584
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Obituaries

Post by Stu » Thu Feb 06, 2020 2:57 am

Evil wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:32 am
Okay come on now, dude was 103.
Yes, the older the person was, the less upset you're allowed to be when they die; it's just science, people!
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2140
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:40 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Obituaries

Post by Torgo » Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:06 am

R.I.P. I especially loved him in Paths of Glory and as Chester Lampwick in The Simpsons, one of the series' best guest roles.
"When I complained, his thugs kicked me out of his office and dropped an anvil on me. Luckily, I was carrying an umbrella at the time."
Last Great Movie Seen
Road House (Herrington, 1989)
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 2158
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Obituaries

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:15 am

RIP

I really loved him in Paths of Glory. Should get around to Spartacus someday.
User avatar
Rock
Posts: 2058
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:48 am
Location: From beyond the moon

Re: Obituaries

Post by Rock » Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:45 am

Holy crap, 103.
I assume he used the Borgnine method.
"We're outgunned and undermanned. But you know somethin'? We're gonna win. You know why? Superior attitude. Superior state of mind." - Mason Storm
____
Blog!
User avatar
Evil
Posts: 421
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:24 am

Re: Obituaries

Post by Evil » Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:41 pm

Stu wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 2:57 am
Yes, the older the person was, the less upset you're allowed to be when they die; it's just science, people!
Yes, exactly. You get it.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1734
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: Obituaries

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:51 pm

it is kinda the almost-end of an era. there are not many living actors from pre-50's Hollywood with a stature similar to Douglas's aside from Olivia de Havilland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _Hollywood
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 2140
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:40 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Obituaries

Post by Torgo » Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:22 pm

R.I.P. Orson Bean. He died in a car accident. How tragic and sad is that?
He was 91. (link)
I loved him as Bilbo in the animated Hobbit movie and as John Cusack's crazy manager in Being John Malkovich.
Last Great Movie Seen
Road House (Herrington, 1989)
Post Reply