With their purchased images, forgettable design and lack of editorial viewpoint, these custom magazines are becoming the new grocery store circulars. A robot could put these together.

Can't believe books like Show And Inside E died while books like this live on. Embarrassing.

Each time I flip through the magazine, as I get hit with endless commercials in the theatre, I'm amazed with how someone has managed to take ingredients, such as exciting movies, top international talents, super Hollywood celebrities, mix them all together, and continually turn out a cheap looking, content lacking, boring magazine. Folks, you can rename it, but if the product doesn't change, it's a waste of time. I've heard the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, without making a change, and expecting a different result. Here's hoping the decision makers at Famous have also heard this. As a second thought, having an end to the staff rotating out the doors in a very constant basis would also go a long way to becoming more seriously considered within the industry.

The potential this mag could have if it had some real writers and at least one designer who knew what they were doing... Come on outer glow text on a cover? this looks like a cover from 2000.

The second you create space for original, readable content, or anything that might engage someone with a grade 8+ education, you also create the possibility of someone else becoming displeased. And pleasure � the pleasure that comes from bland and smiley client-directed content � is their bread and butter.

Famous and Tribute are essentially custom pubs, value-added for your admission price. Their content/layout suffers as a result of tiny budgets and stretched staff. The same lament as so many other mags.

Saw this coming years ago when Cineplex came onto the scene with Famous, which is sad for me to see really happen. I worked with the editors who work tirelessly with tight budgets and imagery that isn't always the greatest to work with but the designers on hand do the best they can. As to staff turnover, I have no idea as to what Not Impressed is talking about. Those editors have been there for a good length of time at least six years now when I first met them as a freelance designer are a great bunch of hard working editors. If only the public really knew that for a long time that one designer was putting together four magazines on different schedules, overlapping at times, you might think differently to what was being accomplished.

excuses excuses. good design is about correct choices, not huge budgets

To Anonymous 7 - Sorry that one designer was doing so much, but isn't that just the problem. This person being spread over so much work just prevents producing a quality finished product. For whatever the reason, the simple fact is the finished product is weak.

The lack of content is not in the magazine but in these comments. Everyone I know picks up Famous (now Cineplex) and loves reading it, including me. The movie star interviews are on a par with most of what's published in the Globe or Post, and it's not like the dailies are taking a lot of original movie photos. And from what I know of the editor, Marni Weisz, she's doing a great job of consistently producing something easy to read and fun. What a bunch of haters.

Not impressed: Staff turnover? You are thinking of Tribute, not Famous/Cineplex, which has had the same editor since it launched more than 10 years ago.

@Shane: everyone you know loves Famous? Get me some oxygen here -- stat! What year is it, Shane? Who's the mayor? I can't find a pulse!

To WTF: seriously, find your own acronym

The Original WTF: Shane -- interviews on par with what's in the Globe? Come now... no chance. I agree it's fun to read and I always pick it up, but like Chill magazine at the Beer Store, the content never lives up to the packaging.

@Shane - I have to agree with Wtf. You are either in bad need of some air, or you're too biased to see the obvious. Interviews on par with the Globe..... give me a break! Like Chill, it's a cheaply done piece of puffery under the premise of being a quality magazine.

Puffery? Sure, but what are you looking to read in the 10 minutes before a film starts? Most people are happy to read a few previews, see some celeb photos and read some gossip--for free.

Wow, this is generating more controversy than the landscape Maclean's cover!