“At the end of the day I can only do what I can do,” Clerks 2 director-writer Kevin Smith says to L.A. Times writer Mark Olsen in a 7.16 piece. “You read a lot of reviews where people say, ‘You should stretch. He should learn to stretch as a filmmaker.’ After a dozen years now, don’t they get it? This is what I do, this is the storyteller I am.

“Do I let myself off the hook by saying, ‘I’m just not that talented?’ Probably. But also I think it’s important to know your limitations. I’ve kind of embraced mine. And I’ve had seven films’ worth of practice to figure that out.”

I don’t entirely believe this. The reason Smith is great on the college-lecture cricuit is that he’s excellent at au contraire-ing — arguing, debating, puncturing balloons. And to me that means he could write a really superb play about a GenX marriage gone bad — a latter-day “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf with a little 2006 “My Dinner with Andre” thrown in. Smith is married and has gone through some trying married-couple stuff…this has to have happened. All he has to do is put it into shape. A play first, and then a low-budget film.

Smith has said he’s too content with his life and too mild-mannered go to in this direction, but as Montgomery Clift’s Pvt. Prewittt says to Burt Lancaster’s Sgt. Warden in From Here to Eternity, “A man should be what he can do.”

One post, to cover all the bases…

The No-Name Guy wrote: “Haha… Daniel Zelter gets slammed.”

I write: Hardly. I certainly wasn’t spoiling for a fight; just correcting what I saw as misinformation (re: Hughes movies and “Fletch Won”).

Let’s not turn this into something it wasn’t, though. I’m getting too old for internet battles, y’know? In the words of the poet: “My name is Kool Rock, and I’m a lover not a fighter.”

Zac wrote: “For what it’s worth, I think it’s refreshing to hear a filmmaker…”

I write: Thanks for the props, sir.

CCA wrote: “Look at Kevin Smith breaking out both the “you direct it” (read: I work, you don’t so don’t say shit to me) AND “I’m successfull” (read: I make movies and you don’t) arguments in practically the same breath.”

I write: That wasn’t the aim, but in re-reading what I wrote, I guess it could be taken that way. It wasn’t the intention. The “You direct it” part was more tongue-in-cheek; not a throwing-down of the gauntlet. The “I’m successful” part was just pure wise-assery.

CCA also wrote: “As for your work, I’m sorry you’re content at the level you reached twelve years ago.”

I write: Gonna have to disagree with you here. If what you’re saying is that I haven’t done anything but the same movie for a dozen years, that’s just silly. “Chasing Amy” is as different from “Clerks” as “Dogma” is from “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” and “Jersey Girl”. The “level” that I’m happy with working on is simply this: I like making talky movies about relationships. That’s why I got into film in the first place: to make films of that nature.

If, however, the point you’re making is that I’ve not gone beyond those types of films, then yes – you’re right. But honestly? I’ve never aspired to.

CCA also wrote: “Not because I think you’re unfufilled or struggling but because I (me, me, me) am disapointed you haven’t delivered on the (again, as perceived by ME) promise of CLERKS.”

I write: I (ME) do appreciate you stressing that this is your opinion. The ‘net would be a much nicer place if more people took the time to do the same.

However, I don’t understand what promise you saw in “Clerks” that I never delivered on. I feel that “Clerks” promised nothing but dialogue-heavy flicks that (hopefully) make you laugh. It’s not like anyone could’ve possibly watched “Clerks” and said “One day, this guy’s gonna give us the next ‘Star Wars’.” A film about people talking about the next “Star Wars”? Sure. But I truly feel I’ve lived up to whatever unspoken promise I made/showed with “Clerks”: I still make talky, (hopefully) funny films.

CCA also wrote: “Good for you that you have a nice life writing stories and selling merchandise, God bless, but I reached the same conclusion (that you do what you do, and that’s all you’ll ever do) a long time ago. Forgive me if I — lo those many years ago — thought yor work might continue to speak to me like CLERKS did.”

I write: Can’t say much to that except that maybe “Clerks II” can do that. But if my flicks are no longer your cup of tea, I’d understand you having zero desire in checking the new one out.

Then, CCA closed with: “BTW, here’s my career advice: Do stand-up or something of that ilk, because you’re a damned entertaining speaker, son.”

I write: Thanks, man. But comedians stand before an audience and generate. All I do is answer questions.

Monty wrote: “Across all six films so far (haven’t seen Clerks 2 yet), he’s shown a marked improvement in each, both in getting even better at writing dialogue, and even better in framing a shot and moving a camera.”

I write: Careful there, Monty: you’re being too reasonable. That kinda behavior might get you kicked off the internet.

Thanks for the kind (and what I feel are true) words.

Osama wrote: “See, Smith embraces his shortcomings as a filmmaker. he knows he has very little talent and is happy with the little he can do. the rest of you American jackals should follow suit with this puny, fat man and realize you too are inferior as he admits to being.”

I write: How can someone be puny and fat at the same time?

Oh, right… my dick.

Harry Lime wrote: “Isn’t it nice for a filmmaker to get advice from message posters including the author of the website himself who have never once made a movie…”

I write: CCA had a point. It’s not like I make the flicks to put on a shelf, never to be seen. Manufacture for use. Once I put ‘em out there, I gotta expect folks will have an opinion on what I do. And sometimes, that opinion won’t be particularly pretty.

However, once folks put their opinion out there, they’ve gotta expect I might not agree with it, and might express that, from time to time: a critique of the critique, if you will.

“Tim Burton” wrote: “I make movies for a living. My movies have made WAY more money than Kevin Smith’s. I think he’s talentless. By Harry Lime’s logic, I win. End of argument.”

I write: That was more entertaining than the “Planet of the Apes” remake.

For the record, though: I think Tim Burton really is a way better filmmaker than me. I think most filmmakers are way better filmmakers than me (PTA included, naturally). Just felt I needed to put that out there, as some people seem to think that because I’ve cracked wise about my “betters” that I don’t respect what they do or their craftsmanship. Not so.

The man who started it all, Daniel Zelter, wrote: “Weren’t you making fun of Home Alone?”

I write: In “Dogma”? Yes. But like I wrote in my first post: “I’m on record as being pro-director Hughes across the boards – even ‘She’s Having a Baby’.” Maybe it’s splitting hairs, but “Home Alone” wasn’t directed by Hughes.

Daniel Zelter also wrote: “So what the f**k was Jersey Girl?”

I write: Not your brand of whimsy, I take it.

Daniel Zelter then went on to write: “And how can a guy who’s proven himself in a popular NBC sitcom not be the lead?”

I write: Sir, you’re preaching to the choir. Talk to Harvey.

Daniel Zelter then wrote: “As for Clerks 2, fine, but I would have prefered the animated film.”

I write: For the moment. Perhaps you’ll wind up liking the flick more than you currently imagine you can. I’ve been getting a lot of that from journos for the last few weeks, during the press tour. Even if you don’t, however, I appreciate you giving it a shot regardless.

Daniel Zelter wrote: “Singer was able to do both kinds of movies. I’m sure you can, too.”

I write: Brian Singer is a much better filmmaker than me, and he has an interest in making larger films. I don’t. I didn’t get into film to make bombastic flicks. I love watching flicks like that, but have zero interest in making one.

Daniel Zelter wrote further: “Actually, I’m a lot less critical than some people, because I’m a fan who just wants to see you move up like Raimi, not down like Burton.”

I write: See my Singer comment above, and swap “Raimi” for “Singer”.

The No Name guy wrote: “Jersey Girl is a good (or bad) film that had something to say about being a man and a father.”

I like your take on it, sir. Most people simply dismiss it as “Gigli 2″. I get that there are plenty folks who didn’t like the movie, but I do honestly believe that had I pulled the Stephen King/Richard Bachman switch and released that movie under a pseudonym, the reviews wouldn’t have been nearly as harsh. Sure, the box office would’ve been the same, but the flick wouldn’t have been written off with stuff like “How could the guy who made ‘Dogma’ make something this conventional and lame?” or “This is a movie Dante and Randal would’ve made fun of in ‘Clerks’.”

This has been fun. I thank all for not smelling blood in the water and turning this into an AICN Talkbacks feeding frenzy. I feel like, even though some of us disagree, we were able to do so with little bitchiness. You HE comments sections folks are alright in my book.