TVSquad

Like most red-blooded Americans, I love lists. We do a lot of them here at TV Squad and you'll see them at many sites every single day of the week. But I think that sometimes the lists go too far. I mean, what's the point of listing the top 50 or top 100 of something? Isn't that a little bit too many spots? Instead of getting down to the nitty-gritty (say, a top 10 or top 25), you ended up not only listing the best, worst, most, least (or whatever the list's topic is), you're just listing all of them.

Case in point, this Forbes list of the 100 most powerful celebrities.

I can understand why the list has to be more than to 10 or 20, but beyond that it still seems like a mishmash of people you'd expect to be on such a list, and #49 really isn't any different from, say, #66. Not in any way that matters to us, anyway. And I'm rather confused by why the amount of money a celeb makes makes a difference in their "power." Yes, Oprah (#1) is powerful and uses her money to change things, but David Letterman is #15? What makes him "powerful," beyond the amount of money he makes? (The celebs are also judged on web rank, press rank, and TV rank).

And The Police? I went to their show in Boston late last year and it was fantastic. But #8?

Besides Oprah and Letterman, there are many TV people on the list, including Jerry Seinfeld (#25), Dr. Phil (#30), Jay Leno (#32), and Tyra Banks (#68). But how does Katherine Heigl (#73) rank higher than Regis Philbin (#74)? Jennifer Aniston (#17 is more powerful right now than Miley Cyrus (#35) and Madonna (#21)? And how in God's name is Lauren Conrad from The Hills (#97) more powerful than Tina Fey (#99)?! If money is the overwhelming factor in how this list is decided, they should change the name of it.

And on a non-TV side note, The Spice Girls are #50?

[via Radar]