Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


'Cause Tonight We're Going To Party Like It's 12-20-12 ...Again!
December 30, 2012 9:53 PM   Subscribe

2012 in 4 minutes [SLYT]

by Filmaker. Activist. Personality. Ryan James Yezak who won a successful Kickstarter campaign this year and who earned considerable attention this past election his video "Gay and Voting for Mitt Romney?".
posted by Mike Mongo (30 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite

 
though I appreciate the work that must have gone into this, I'm immediately struck with how it's really just a pumped up acknowledgement of all the year's BIG DEAL HYPE, most of which I've done my best to avoid.

In other words -- those four minutes are not my 2012

thank god.
posted by philip-random at 9:58 PM on December 30, 2012 [9 favorites]


Oh shit, is it too late to vote?
posted by shakespeherian at 10:00 PM on December 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


Yup, that was an appropriate amount of time to devote to this year's TV news.
posted by MrVisible at 10:03 PM on December 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


For 2012 being a rather important year, with many history changing events, the media sure covered a lot of crap stories this year.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 10:34 PM on December 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


philip-random: " I'm immediately struck with how it's really just a pumped up acknowledgement of all the year's BIG DEAL HYPE, most of which I've done my best to avoid. "

Watching that emotion carry the video from Honey Boo Boo through school shootings and Amanda Todd was a little disconcerting, to say the least.
posted by Apropos of Something at 10:35 PM on December 30, 2012


His family name means "hedgehog," which matches his hairstyle. That makes him a witch.
posted by Nomyte at 10:46 PM on December 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Filmaker. Activist. Personality.

Titleistâ„¢.
posted by basicchannel at 10:46 PM on December 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


What, no Kony?
posted by OHenryPacey at 11:03 PM on December 30, 2012


What, no Kony?

Kony2012 shows up in the first minute.

The guy jumping to earth from space got six and a half seconds of the video, more than any other single event. Take this as you will.
posted by mightygodking at 11:05 PM on December 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


A lot of famous people died this year.
posted by phaedon at 11:06 PM on December 30, 2012


Not enough Michelle Jenneke
posted by mbatch at 11:11 PM on December 30, 2012


This video raises many questions for me:

1. Why do people act like the Oscars are important?
2. Does anyone remember how Whitney was generally seen as a punchline for over a decade before she died (and Michael Jackson before her), or is it really just me? And is anyone else at all uncomfortable with the way death makes it cool to idolize said punchline celebrities?
3. Did the mash of audio on that cause anyone to turn it off before the halfway mark, or is it just me?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:13 PM on December 30, 2012 [5 favorites]


Yeah - I'm not particularly prone to seizures, but it was just too much for me.

Guess I'm getting old.
posted by symbioid at 11:25 PM on December 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


The pain of this 4 minutes has less to do with TV News or viral videos, and more with its format of new faces every half second. The brain is not designed for it. It could have taken a lesson from dub-step, hyperspeed interspersed with slowmow.
posted by stbalbach at 11:47 PM on December 30, 2012


phaedon: "A lot of famous people died this year."

Interesting thought. Is that anecdotal or true? According to Wikipedia, there were 5,075 deaths of notable people this year. The past 13 years:

*2000: 3,898
*2001: 4,051
*2002: 4,286
*2003: 4,408
*2004: 4,636
*2005: 5,049
*2006: 5,492
*2007: 5,787
*2008: 6,021
*2009: 6,079
*2010: 6,134
*2011: 5,704
*2012: 5,075

Mathematically, the number of notable deaths should steadily increase year on year - every year the pop. of the world increases and the absolute number of notable people increases, likewise deaths. However there is an unusual dip in 2011-12. What does it mean?
posted by stbalbach at 12:07 AM on December 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


there's a plague of fame on the world ... and it seems to have peaked in 2010.
posted by philip-random at 12:17 AM on December 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


seriously. who is defining who is/isn't (was/wasn't) famous?
posted by philip-random at 12:19 AM on December 31, 2012


Another potential explanation: We're now at the age when a lot of people who starred in television shows when television first became popular would be expected to die of old age. Come to think of it, the early 1950s or so are when our contemporary definitions of who's famous start to begin: that's why we seem to lose a lot of astronauts now too.
posted by Apropos of Something at 12:24 AM on December 31, 2012


Haha, I will always associate Ryan James Yezak as The Guy. Behind. This Video.
posted by erstwhile ungulate at 12:26 AM on December 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


philip-random: "seriously. who is defining who is/isn't (was/wasn't) famous?"

Wikipedia rules. Which are at remarkably consistent (academic studies have shown a close correlation between world population growth and Wikipedia notable people by birth year, going back centuries). Basically notability comes down to other people writing about them. So someone might be a successful lawyer, professor, or TV news anchor; but they are not notable unless other people have written about them in reliable sources with significant coverage. So the local news TV anchor is well known and visible, but unless they have been profiled in a newspaper or magazine in a biographical manner etc.. they don't make it. That's a simplified explanation, the rules are esoteric with rules for specific professions (academics, sports, etc).
posted by stbalbach at 1:24 AM on December 31, 2012 [3 favorites]


I was looking for year end videos to put on another site and kept coming back to this one. (vimeo | fullscreen)

(not to diminish 2012 or this FPP...just an observation)
posted by lampshade at 2:56 AM on December 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


That video was ridiculously America-centered. All pop culture and TV news. Syria got perhaps 5 seconds of coverage. Hurricane Sandy? The disaster in the Philippines?

The whole thing was like a E! entertainment reel. Gross.
posted by rattleandhum at 3:06 AM on December 31, 2012 [3 favorites]


seriously. who is defining who is/isn't (was/wasn't) famous?

I am. And it's fucking time consuming. I'm under contract to do it through 2015 and I'm not gonna renew unless they triple my merengue payment.
posted by dobbs at 6:23 AM on December 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


The whole thing was like a E! entertainment reel. Gross.

I play a game when I go to stores with entertainment magazines in the check-out lanes. After I stopped watching TV and consuming traditional media almost a decade ago I'm waiting for the day when I don't recognize anyone on the covers. This video was similar; I recognized several actual news events, and I recognized the format of some of the other items, but not the actual content. It's a good feeling.
posted by odinsdream at 6:28 AM on December 31, 2012 [3 favorites]


That was like mainlining time.
posted by k8lin at 7:07 AM on December 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


Wow, I'd forgotten about the Florida face-eater.

True story: when the face-eater and a few other zombiesque events happen, my students were all, "zombie apocalypse" and I was like, yeah, maybe too soon guys and they were all, no! Ms. Angrycat! Zombie Apocalypse! and I realized that there was a bit of belief (hope?) that this was the case.
posted by angrycat at 7:25 AM on December 31, 2012


Wow, I'd forgotten about the Florida face-eater.

Interesting. It's the one story I'd really prefer to forget. (Full disclosure: native Floridian.) Of all the crazy things that happened, that one always struck me as creepy horror for the sake of creepy horror. Just over the top gratuitous poison news fodder.

Like entertainment news gone more worsely wrong.
posted by Mike Mongo at 7:54 AM on December 31, 2012


Metafilter: seriously. who is defining who is/isn't (was/wasn't) famous?
posted by Lipstick Thespian at 9:14 AM on December 31, 2012


That's a simplified explanation, the rules are esoteric with rules for specific professions (academics, sports, etc).

A. This final sentence is certainly loaded and speaks volumes as to my skepticism toward the whole notion of fame/notability rankings,

B. At least wikipedia refers to them as notable (as opposed to famous) people; the older I get, the more I come to think of fame as an affliction. Indeed, I am reminded that when Andy Warhol made his famous statement about everybody being famous for fifteen minutes in the future, it was offered not as a promise but a threat.

May the New Year bring us all more anonymity.
posted by philip-random at 10:18 AM on December 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


stbalbach wrote: Mathematically, the number of notable deaths should steadily increase year on year - every year the pop. of the world increases and the absolute number of notable people increases, likewise deaths. However there is an unusual dip in 2011-12. What does it mean?

Sadly, the numbers you cite correspond to the red line on this page. That said, some additional deaths in 2012 will likely noted on the 2012 pages in 2013 and beyond.
posted by robla at 9:31 PM on December 31, 2012


« Older What is perhaps the best license ever applied to a...   |   I understand your great grandf... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments