Kirsty Smith writes:

hello who are you please write back.

Kirsty Smith, without waiting for a reply, writes:

want a pretty picture of an angel?

The Flick Filosopher responds, to the first email:

Who are you and why are you writing to me if you don't know who I am?

The Flick Filosopher responds, to the second email:

I don't believe in angels.

Kirsty Smith on the angels:

dont you ?

The Flick Filosopher on the angels:

Nope.

Kirsty Smith, back to wanting a pen pal:

i want a friend to email to. im thirteen a girl and at school right now.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Sorry, you'll have to find someone else. I'm a busy grown-up.

Kirsty Smith replies:

so. ive emailed plenty of other grown-ups theyb still have the time to email me.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I guess I'm busier than most, then.

Kirsty Smith again:

how come you were able to email me the last messages then huh?

The Flick Filosopher responds:

You sounded so plaintive and desperate, and I wanted to let you know why I couldn't really respond in the way you wanted. But I guess you're really just a little snot.

Kirsty Smith replies:

a little snot? desperate? girl, you dont know who youre talking to. i am not desperate to email someone ive got plenty of people but i want more. there is even this guy that wants to fuck me. his name is dwaine daimond. so im desperate huh? youre the snot. or more likely...slut...

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Boy, a guy wants to fuck you? How do you live with your own fabulousness?

Kirsty Smith replies:

what are you talking about? ive probably had more guys than youll ever have. how many boyfriends have you had? ive had 13

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I was trying to sarcastically point out that a guy wanting to fuck was hardly cause for celebration. Most guys'll fuck anything with a pulse, given the chance, so it's not that much of a compliment.

[Maybe it's time to remove my email address from the site. I need 13-year-old, angel-loving girls who've had 13 boyfriends calling me a slut?--MAJ]

Chris Barry writes:

Wow.

I'm the writer, editor, designer of www.skyhighpictureshow.com. I'm also the film/video editor for www.men360.com (a site that's breathing, I'm afraid, its last) and a columnist for www.filmfodder.com.

Point is, the only way you make money writing is by writing for print (which I do - I'm an associate editor for a trade publication). Lest one thinks they're above writing for the trades - think this: I make my living writing. I also don't think print is above the Internet - the www is a home for millions of voices and for those who love to explore their own ideas, for writers honing their skills, for anybody who wants to be heard.

That said, I don't expect monetary gain with www.skyhighpictureshow.com - I do it for love.

Somehow, I think shilling for cash to keep a personal web site's a little, well, smarmy.

I enjoy your stuff, by the way. Do I care $20 bucks worth to have you eliminate banner ads? No. I know how cheap it is to keep a site up and running. My site lives wholly without banner ads.

And, somehow, people find my site.

Bye for now.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Regardless of your experience on the Internet, there are plenty of people making money online selling their content, people running mom-and-pop sites and email newsletters. I'd like to be one of them, and if even only a tiny portion of the large number of people reading my site on a regular basis become paying subscribers to my email lists (or choose to show their appreciation with a donation), I will be one of them.

I'm sorry that you feel that "shilling" for donations or subscriptions is "smarmy." I don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to pay a little for something they enjoy a lot... and I've got lots of people telling me they love my site and want more from me. And like public TV or a street musician, people can still enjoy the vast majority of my work for free if they can't or don't want to donate/subscribe.

As you note, it's not that expensive to keep a Web site up and running. But the hours and expertise that go into my site should not come cheap. Time magazine just highlighted The Flick Filosopher as a notable site for film reviews; every single other site they mentioned as worth checking out for film, food, music, and product reviews are either owned by big corporations (RollingStone.com, Amazon.com, IMDB.com), have thousands of users contributing to them, or both. Mine is the only site they highlighted that is run and written entirely by one person: me. Throw in the fact that, again, I have the readership of a respectable monthy magazine, many of whom tell me to write more and more often, and I don't think it's unfair to ask for something back from those readers.

Chris Barry again:

I didn't mean to sound like I was blasting you for what you're doing to get a little dough for putting in the time, expertise, etc into your site.

Its a tough gig - I know it. Especially when you're working full time at something else.

But, at the same time, like public television, I think its 'funny' to be asking for money from viewers/readers. For instance, I've never seen anything on public television that would prompt me to pay for it out of my own pocket.

On the flip side, I've never, by influence of an ad, paid for products I've seen advertised on network TV. When I'm at the theater, I don't rush to the concession stand when I see a Coca-Cola ad. Products I buy are due to personal decisions not based on the whims of advertisers.

Should everything be free? In Utopia maybe. Would I turn down cash to help keep my site going? No. But I just can't ask for it.

Now, if your content somehow came in print form and I saw it at my local book store and I liked what you were saying - I'd probably plunk down a couple bucks to buy it. If I really liked it, I'd do a subscription. I'm getting something for the cash. But, by the nature of the Internet - which lacks legitimacy because any fan, any yokel, can slap content up into cyberspace - I refuse to pay for it. Its like buying air.

Even Salon - which has high editorial standards and demands a paid subscription - wouldn't get a dime from me as long as they're on the Internet.

But, thanks for your reply. Good luck.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I have actually donated money to public television. So I guess I don't find it so remote a possibility that readers might chip in for my work, too.

I'm struck by your contention that my work is not worth paying for on the Web but would be worth paying for in print. Aren't you getting "something" from my Web site (or other content-driven sites)? Sure, the Net is full of shit, because anyone can post whatever junk they want. But how does that de-legitimize the good stuff online? And haven't you ever paid for a book or magazine or CD or DVD and wondered how the hell that ever got published/produced?

Chris Barry replies:

It isn't that your work in particular is not worth paying for. I'm saying I have a problem paying for work that is posted on such a dubious enterprise as the Internet. I already pay for Internet service. I'm not about to pay for content. Its like going to the library and all of the sudden being told I'm going to be charged for checking out a book along with the city taxes I pay. When I pay for something, I want something tangible back.

If the Internet was pay as you read you can bet it wouldn't be as popular as it is. That's what makes it so lively - the shit and the good. So I'm supposed to pay for stuff that's deemed 'good' yet the shit is free? So public television guilts viewers into making 'donations' because their stuff is 'good' and isn't 'good' worth it? I just don't think I should pay for any of it and when I built my site (and I'm proud of it) I never expected any payment. I just wanted to get my ideas out there and see if anybody else agreed or disagreed. I spend a lot of time on that thing from design, programming, writing, etc. and not once did I ask for a dime.

I can't rank the value of my work with dollar signs - if I start to worry about cash then I'm sunk.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Pay-for-content on the Net is like cable TV. Maybe it's a generational thing, but my mom complains that she has to pay for cable and still watch commercials... or pay for cable and then pay again for the non-commercial channels like HBO. I know lots of people who feel that way about cable.

Me, though, I pay for cable service (like an ISP)... and then I pay for content like The Sopranos on HBO and Stargate SG1 on Showtime (like paying for a premium Salon membership or throwing a coupla bucks in the tip jars of sites I appreciate, which I have done), because it's content I can't get for free and I think it's worth paying for. And I know lots of people who feel that way about cable, too.

Sure, you pay for Internet service: you're paying to get connected. Do you think I or Salon or FuckedCompany or The Onion or any other sites get a cut of what you pay your ISP? That's like saying that you pay the electric company to run your TV so you shouldn't have to pay for cable.

I guess if you're happy reading the free shit online, that's what you'll be doing when the good stuff all moves to a pay basis. Which I suspect will have to happen eventually if the good stuff is going to survive. Because honing writing or animation skills (or whatever other kind of creative content works online) takes time and devotion, and if there genuinely comes a point at which it becomes clear that someone like me will never make a living online, then eventually the only people who can post their stuff online will be hobbyists who don't have the time to hone their skills because they're too busy making a living some other way. You can't be much of an artist/ writer/ painter/ musician/ etc in your spare time -- most of us are not Albert Einstein, discovering the fundamental laws of the universe on our lunch hours. We need to devote most of our resources to our art, whatever that art is.

It's great for you that money is not a concern. My site started as a labor of love, too, but now it's grown well beyond that. If my readers want me to write more and more -- and I've got lots of readers asking me for more and more -- then there comes a point when I have to choose between other, paying work and doing more on my site. I'd prefer to write more for my site. But people telling me they love me doesn't pay the rent... and neither does a mention in Time magazine.

Free isn't free. Free has to be paid for somehow, whether it's by annoying advertising (I'm taking hostages the next time my browser gets cluttered with pop-under ads) or by sacrificing quality. I wish that wasn't true, but it is.

Paul Zukas writes:

Geez, I bought a FF coffee mug at $15 plus P&H&T,

AND I sent you $20 in hope of knowing that another banner had been taken down (but never got an acknowledgement that it happened),

AND all the above has been done in loyalty to one of the few fellow atheists that happens to be female and a movie buff that I've ever known (what's the correct grammatical construction of the preceding?)

And now you want more...????

Gimmee a break, already!

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I'm sorry, what "more" are you referring to?

Thanks for buying a mug. I hope you're enjoying it -- I know I love mine.

Did you donate through Amazon? Amazon keeps payee information secret, so I have no way of knowing who donates through Amazon, unless the payee specifically requests that further information be sent to me. Regardless, you can be assured that for every $20 I've received, a banner had come down. You can see the tally of banners removed here.

[He never responded.--MAJ]

KC Woman writes:

Regarding "The Musketeer", should your review reference the ladder scene, please give credit to the famous ladder scene that inspired it in Jet Li's "Once Upon a Time in China". Thank you.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I've never even seen Once Upon a Time in China, so that might be a tad difficult.

Lots of things in almost every movie are inspired by pieces of other movies. It's isn't always practical, reasonable, or in keeping with what a review is trying to impart to discuss all of them.

woodslore writes:

You got bashed by Time precisely because you aren't a part of the corporate owned/co-opted crowd. This is another of the endless examples of corporations working to change the public's view of anything they don't produce. Rather like dead people writing in support of Microsoft.

You have visibility MaryAnn. You have power through that visibility. You aren't corrupted. Your fans are loyal. Keep up the good work.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Thanks for the words of support. They're much appreciated.

JanKoengeter8@webtv.net writes:

Saw the Time article and decided to check out your site. Then decided to use Moulin Rouge as a benchmark review to see if I might come to value your opinion. We seem to think alike. I'll continue to read your reviews in future, and hope to find a good amount of time to spend in your site very soon.

[Warning: A.I. spoilers]

McNeill L Michael Capt SMC/XRII writes:

[continued from here]

You've got cash!

Michael McNeill just sent you money with PayPal.

Dang. I guess you were right about the robot-theory. According to one of your email readers, CORY TAYLOR, Speilberg unfortunately spills the beans on who the creatures were at the end of A.I. And I thought I had a pretty convincing argument for Aliens. And of course I still do. But here's 5 bucks for your explanation being the "correct" one. However - - your reader did mention that Speilberg said they were an "Advanced form of Robot". Does the article mention that they were Terrestrial robots??? Hmmmm. But I'm guessing Speilberg wanted that cool connection between old and Superadvanced robots to be made.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Thanks! Your generosity if much appreciated.

Haven't seen the article myself, so I can't say what else Spielberg might have said. Regardless of what Spielberg intended, though, the origin of the beings at the end is not explained in the film, and if you can make an argument that they were aliens -- which you did -- then that explanation can work, too.

geoffrey egert writes:

hi,

Finding Forrester

just got done watching this film. and read your review.... please turn off your cell phone and eat breakfast.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

hi,

just got done reading your comments. please communicate in the English language.

geoffrey egert again:

carry on, if you reply two min's after i sent an e-mail you to then i've communication clearly.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

No, you haven't "communication clearly." I had no idea what you were trying to tell me, and I still don't.

geoffrey egert writes:

LOL

later

[WTF?--MAJ]

Aramis Bacallao writes:

I am an American who has been living overseas for seven years now. Although it was harder to see movies in Casablanca than it is here in Kiev, the selection of films is severely limited. Blockbusters mostly. Although I enjoy a good blockbuster as much as anyone else, the quirky, independent films that generally appeal to me are all too rare. I try to catch up as much as possible during my visits back to the United States. When I go to the movies or, more frequently, the video store, I'm a bit overwhelmed at the vast number of movies from which to choose. I only have so much time and want my movies to be entertaining and intelligent. Your recommendations make the process of selection much less daunting. I've been reading the content on your site for over two years now and decided it was time to say thanks. I appreciate the female perspective, which is often missing from the only other site I visit regularly for reviews, Ebert's. Thanks again for the help.

newer mail | previous mail