<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Friday movie roundup &#038; Film.com pimpage - Aug. 31</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ericdsnider.com/blog/2007/08/31/friday-movie-roundup-filmcom-pimpage-aug-31/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ericdsnider.com/blog/2007/08/31/friday-movie-roundup-filmcom-pimpage-aug-31/</link>
	<description>Eric D. Snider's blog.</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:07:58 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Neil</title>
		<link>http://www.ericdsnider.com/blog/2007/08/31/friday-movie-roundup-filmcom-pimpage-aug-31/#comment-57327</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:57:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ericdsnider.com/blog/2007/08/31/friday-movie-roundup-filmcom-pimpage-aug-31/#comment-57327</guid>
		<description>Some thoughts on the article (since I don't feel like registering for film.com and want to post on a whim):

1) It was pretty good and you make a compelling argument.  It reads like what you've been saying for ages, but to a broader audience (for your financial sake, I hope).

2) When you started to list the no-screen list for 2007, I thought you were going to list all 17.  Is there a list somewhere not movies not screened?  I'm just wondering if all the unscreened movies are that bad (plus, as you point out Snakes on a Plane sort of undermines your point)

Edit-before-I-post: according to Guy, it could be worse.  It looks like 31 and counting haven't been screened in Canada.  I can't be bothered to figure out how to properly create hyperlinks in this particular comment system, so here's the link: http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/this-movie-was-not-screened-for.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some thoughts on the article (since I don&#8217;t feel like registering for film.com and want to post on a whim):</p>
<p>1) It was pretty good and you make a compelling argument.  It reads like what you&#8217;ve been saying for ages, but to a broader audience (for your financial sake, I hope).</p>
<p>2) When you started to list the no-screen list for 2007, I thought you were going to list all 17.  Is there a list somewhere not movies not screened?  I&#8217;m just wondering if all the unscreened movies are that bad (plus, as you point out Snakes on a Plane sort of undermines your point)</p>
<p>Edit-before-I-post: according to Guy, it could be worse.  It looks like 31 and counting haven&#8217;t been screened in Canada.  I can&#8217;t be bothered to figure out how to properly create hyperlinks in this particular comment system, so here&#8217;s the link: <a href="http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/this-movie-was-not-screened-for.html" rel="nofollow">http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/this-movie-was-not-screened-for.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
