Tom Hanks is 62? He's retirement age now? I just can't wrap my head around that. He's the same age as Carrie Fisher, & it's still hard to realize her & Robin Williams are both gone now. I'm in the back half of my 40's now, which doesn't feel that much different than the last 10 years (I've actually gotten healthier) & the time seems to have flown by. I guess I have had time enough to let the ages of famous people who are in their 70's or older sink in (Harrison Ford, Paul McCartney, Robert Deniro, etc...) but it's those folks in their 60s that are the hardest for me to adjust to. Whoopi is over 60? I'm just not use to thinking of them as old yet
I believe the comparatively non-ephemeral nature of recorded media alludes to an ersatz sense of timelessness as much as recorded media is also living vicariously, a catharsis, and a lazy cheat. It depends on your point of view. Then look at what's changed over the decades - in both good and not good ways. Then think of all the people who aren't actors or singers. Gets a lot more depressing as one goes along the rabbit hole, doesn't it? Meanwhile, The original subversives, some of which were nigh on 30 when singing in other songs about not trusting folk over 30... who needs drugs, humans are a real trip!
lol, of course, that song is over 50 years old now. I saw Tom Hanks in The Post, last year, & I just wasn't thinking "this guy is over 60 now" I mean SPIKE LEE is over 60. HTF did that happen? Levar Burton too. Holy cow But yes, a lot of it is perspective. I mean Ralph Macchio is the same age as George Clooney (57) I'd never have made that connection
Just wait until YOU'RE in your sixties. It happens overnight, I swear! And then you hear the Beatles' "When I'm 64" and you realize...Hey! I AM 64! And then you hear on the radio that the song you were just listening to is 50 years old today. Another shocker. But still, growing older is better than not, for the most part.
It's not the growing older part that bothers me as much, it's the "everything ending" part that concerns me the most.
I'm the complete opposite of that. There's so much less point to it all, unless it ends. However, the slow betrayal of oneself that accompanies aging? Everything ending... a piece at a time? Dreadful. I guess those are the 2 schools of living Geez, even some of the Voyager folks are in their 60s now, Ethan Philips, Beltran, Mulgrew, Russ, Picardo. Roxann Dawson just turned 60. WTF?
Wil Wheaton is now older than the rest of the TNG cast (aside from Patrick Stewart) were when the show was in production. He's also two years younger than Patrick Stewart was when TNG started.
Ending? Eh... maybe, but I think another aspect is the short span we have. If we do everything right, if we manage to somehow beat the odds, we might make it to 100 or 110. A handful of people have lived slightly past that. 110 years when compared to the earth, when compared to the growth of civilization, when put up against the universe herself is just minuscule. It's not even a blip. I could deal better with the ending if the journey spanned centuries rather than mere decades. We're dying before we're even living.
To a sixteen-year-old Paul McCartney, 64 must have seemed ancient. Today, with so many Boomers staying active and vigorous well past retirement age, that song sounds more like it's about being 84 or 94! You know what they say: Growing old isn’t so bad when you consider the alternative.
It's all relative to how you weigh it. While true that we're less than a blip in the measure of the universe, is that really the most appropriate metric to be compared to? Compared to those things like us, with the exception of some rare sea creatures, we're among the longest living animals on the planet, especially amongst land dwellers That we live only long enough to appreciate how insignificant we are is probably a good thing. I mean using 100 years as a metric, Galileo was only born only like four & a half people ago lol. Our entire calendar is only 20 people ago
Marisa Tomei is Spider-Man's aunt, and Winona Ryder played Spock's mom ten years ago. This messes me up each time I think about it.
If you lined each life up end to end, at its optimized maximum expectancy, then yes, but it doesn't work like that, and humans take up around 20 years just to reach maturity. Then you consider cognitive decline starts around age 45-50, and we're completely aware of it all as it happens. It just seems like a cruel joke.