Cleaning the condo today while Sophie is getting groomed and at doggie day care and I decided to try and freshen up my mattress topper; bad idea !

Ruined it and the stuffing came out; huge wet mess. It's in the garbage now

I resemble that remark.

-M

I am beyond bored with magazines continually publishing filler articles pertaining to Top 20, Top 50, Top 100, etc. Enough!

I buy some magazines, not always monthly. They tend to be a wrestling magazine, music magazines and film magazines. And I think I'm gonna scream if I pick up ONE more issue (or not pick it up, I often decline) and see "Top 100 Films", "Top 50 Metal Albums" and "100 Novels You Should Read". It's unimaginative filler - and I think the magazines could do something different. Michael O'Hara, who edited the defunct New Wave Wrestling, said something similar many years ago.

I wouldn't mind if, like the CCF, these lists were subjective. But it's the same old time and time again. If a movie magazine does a Top 100 Films list, you'll get to read about Psycho and The Thing for the hundredth time even though we know both films intimately; if a music magazine does a Top 50 Metal Albums list, it'll be the usual choices, all predictable and unsurprising; and one magazine I may give up (WrestleTalk) seems obsessed with doing lists. Even a wrestling fan like myself thinks, 'There is nothing more boring than yet another issue about the Top 50 Wrestlers In The World.' It feels lazy.

At least with something like the CCF lists, they are subjective. I doubt a magazine doing a top comic battles list would include my choice of Snowbird vs. a beast in a blizzard (all white panels). And seeing some CCF choices over Xmas reminded me that you can do no better than have people choose things personal to them.

But stick a load of magazine editors in a room to compile a list - and you'll get the same choices that have been done time and time again. I can guarantee, if you picked up movie magazines from the last 10-15 years, and some issues did a Top Movies list, you will find the SAME movies listed. There's nothing subjective. It's compiling lists by committee. And it feels lazy. Newspapers are the same. A Top 50 novels won't feature subjective choices, which might be interesting, it'll be Mr or Miss Editor choosing all the Charles Dickens novels, throwing in some H.G. Wells - and then including Frankenstein. All good novels, but it's tedious.

I consciously avoid such magazines. The magazines from publishers of lesser renown don't do that. Or, if they do, it's subjective choices. But I really have no desire to pick up the umpteenth movie magazine with a Top 100 films list that will give the same review of Psycho that countless other magazines have done.

It's filler. Those pages could be put to better use. The latest issue of Wrestletalk is missing some usual features it has, but I guess you've got to fit in yet another list. 

Lists are only fine for me if they are subjective. CCF has shown that.

But imagine if comic journalists had been employed here to come up with their lists. We'd see the same things again and again.

I mean, imagine a "Ten graphic novels you should read..." list. Yes, I know a case can be made for Watchmen. But let's face it, everyone from devout comic readers to Santa Claus owns that book - or has read it. It's self-evident. Why include it on a list? Most will have it or be seeking it or know of it. Far better if "Ten graphic novels you should read..." includes lesser-known books.

This is where magazine lists go wrong. It's absolutely no surprise to see predictable choices. These lists should be subjective. Maybe magazines could do a short feature and allow the writers/freelancers to just come up with a personal list - rather than the same editorial team going with the usual staid choices.

Is anyone else as fascinated as me about the absolute s**tshow that is the Cats movie?? It seems like such a colossal failure that will be discussed for decades. I kind of want to see it with some drinks and laugh, but I hear it may even be too horrifying for that.

Everybody needs something to complain about and with all of the fan entitlement going around these days why not jump on the band wagon? I will admit to seeing Cats this weekend and liking it, not loving it. Having experienced the play in the 80's and having the 1998 DVD version of which I adore both. This time around it is just an odd experience. The CGI is not strong enough yet for this type of a movie and they made the poor choice of keeping human totally human looking faces upon fake fur which looks "painted" on their bodies and doesn't truly resemble fur at all. And that LOTS of the movie was shot on green screen giving the effect that the bodies are more floating in scenes versus actually touching the ground while combined with "star stunt" casting and fans and newbies alike are very unhappy with the movie. The state of CGI just isn't quite there yet for capturing such fast and furrious (sorry) physical action on the screen. Add to the fact adding a tail onto the human body just makes anyone walking upright look like a monkey and less a cat!

Some of the stars work quite well.  Stars Ian McKellen (he truly went all out becoming a true cat) and Judi Dench perform as expected providing depth to their characters, James Corden and Rebel Wilson provide comedic aspects that seem rather out of place, Jason Derulo and Jennifer Hudson were cast for their singing talent to highlight 2 of the more favorite and famous of Cats Characters. Idris Elba was meant to provide gravitas to Macavity who is now the main "villain" (and NOT a Ginger as supposed to be as described in the poem) for the movie and Taylor Swift was simply cast for delivering young fans into the movie seats. The main characters (dancers cast very well) are grand and do a wonderful job and I was mesmerized watching Francesca Howard as Victoria, Laurie Davidson as Mr. Mistoffelees and Robbie Fairchild as Munkustrap and Steven McRae as Skimblehsanks. 

Well there weren’t furries then when the play was popular. Or at least they stayed in their cat houses and didn’t come outside. Now they have conventions.