I have been a subscriber to Entertainment Weekly for much of the past decade, but sometimes you just have to part ways with old friends.
A couple weeks ago, the magazine did 63 pages on 'Sex and the City.'
63 pages. Not counting the big-ass ad in the middle of the publication.
Sorry, that's a little more than a lot of pandering.
I know many people like that show (later I would learn there are enough 'Sex' fans for a big-screen version to beat Indiana Jones at the box office in its second week of release), but 63 pages is excessive for any one topic.
To their credit, one of those 63 pages was written from the point of view of a male writer who shared my opinion that he was never taken by this snobby dramedy, but this was not enough for me to justify my subscription any longer.
Now that I am newly jobless, I need to trim the fat.
Sorry EW, but you are now cut.
Most of your information is available on the Internet for free and a lot of it (especially the film reviews done by Lisa Schwarzbaum) is done much better and with more insight elsewhere.
The upside of this decision is that I am anticipating a check from the company for $33 for the remainder of my subscription.
I'll use that money to rent episodes of much better TV shows such as 'Weeds' and 'Battlestar Galactica' in hopes they may someday get 63 pages of gushing coverage should Hollywood (and Entertainment Weekly) decide these programs get the recognition they deserve.
Take that to mean what you want, it probably does.
Kaboom.. rumble, rumble, rumble.
=WL=
No comments:
Post a Comment