FLASHBACK: Destroying Matt Walsh w/ Critical Drinker
07:54 Share

Every day, local businesses open their doors with more than just a plan. They bring persistence, ambition, and a vision for what's next. And America's banks bring the tools and strategic guidance to get there. From storefronts on Main Street

Well, folks, since I'm off, I thought that you might enjoy the full interview that I did with Critical Drinker. It's an awesome interview. It is really enjoyable. And it's a nice break.

So we've had a literary take on why Lord of the Rings is great and not too long. And now I need a movie expert's take on why Matt Walsh is wrong. Because if we're going to fisk somebody, we're doing it in a comprehensive fashion here. Joining us on the line is the critical drinker to analyze Matt Walsh's hot take that Lord of the Rings is bad because it is too long, among other critiques. Good to see you. How are you doing?

I'm good, thank you. How are you? You know, I'm doing well, except I just, I can't deal with the fact that there's a person who works for our company who has such stupid thoughts about Lord of the Rings. So I need to get your take on Matt's take.

I mean, Matt seems like a nice guy, but man, he has some bad takes on media. And I think this is up there with the worst of them. His primary complaint seems to be that the films are too long and therefore they are bad. And I've never held with that complaint about any movie. It should be as long as the plot dictates. And in this case, there is an awful lot of plot to get through. So these movies deserve to be as long as they are. In fact, the theatrical cuts aren't even long enough. It's the extended cuts that you really want for the proper experience. I mean, that...

I have exactly the same issue with Matt's take. I mean, I think it's actually his second worst movie take after The Dark Knight is super overrated, is his other horrifyingly bad movie take. But the whole point of the, unlike The Hobbit, which is way too long because the plot does not justify the length of those films,

And the book itself makes this clear. I mean, the whole series of—so The Hobbit itself is about a 300-page book. The entire series of Lord of the Rings is over 1,000 pages. I mean, it is a very, very long book. And it's—it doesn't—the movie doesn't even cover everything that's in the book, and it's still long, and it moves quickly. I mean, it's one of those movies where you finish Fellowship, and you're surprised that it's over already.

Absolutely, yeah. And I think part of the issue is that it's a fantasy novel or, you know, it's based on a fantasy novel. And, you know, fantasy stories stand or fall based on the world that they create. It's got to be a living, breathing, believable world that's got depth to it. And that's the thing that the Lord of the Rings movies do so well. It really gets you invested in this world and it helps you to understand that what you're seeing is just one small story in a much grander saga that's been going on for thousands of years.

There is so much history there, there is so many different cultures, so much that's going on outside the scope of this narrative.

It conveys all of that, and I think that's what allows people to get so immersed into these movies so effectively. And of course it takes a lot of time to do that. One of the things that I also find weird about Matt's take on this is that obviously Matt is a very Christian person. The entire Lord of the Rings saga is filled with Christian symbolism and Christian imagery, and it's replete throughout the series. But Matt is a very literal-minded movie watcher, I think.

I mean, Tolkien himself was a Catholic and obviously raised in a very different time when religion was still extremely prevalent in British culture. And when he set out to make this, his whole goal was to create a mythology for England.

which I think he did superbly. And he brought in elements of paganism, of various religions, Arthurian legends, the story of Atlantis, and the faith-based aspect, some of his Catholicism, all brought together into this beautiful epic story. So it's a superb piece of work. If you're a homeowner, you need to listen to this. Did you know that somebody can literally steal your house? I don't mean like they jack it up on a

on a truck or something, but the value in your home actually can be stolen. A scammer can forge your signature on one document, use a fake notary stamp, and spend about 40 bucks to file it at the county recorder. Then they can take out loans using your home as collateral. You won't even know it's happening until you start getting collection and foreclosure notices in the mail. Can you imagine if you or someone you cared about became a victim of these scams? That would be incredibly sad and frustrating, especially knowing there are people out there like Home Title Lock who

We'll be right back.

Again, protecting the value in your home is probably your biggest asset. You need to protect it. Get 24-7 monitoring of your title, urgent alerts if there are any changes. And if fraud does happen, their U.S.-based restoration team will spend up to a million bucks to fix the fraud and restore your title. When you go to HomeTitleLock.com and use promo code Shapiro right now, you can get a free 14-day trial and a title history report and find out if you're already a victim. That's HomeTitleLock.com, promo code Shapiro.

So I want to ask you how you think that the film holds up. One of the things that I find so astonishing about Lord of the Rings is that if you watch movies that are made in that same era, early 2000s, the CGI really doesn't hold up. It just looks bad. The CGI, and really very little of it is CGI actually, a lot of it is using things like bigatures, the methodology that Jackson used in making Lord of the Rings holds up better than much of the CGI that is currently being made today.

Absolutely, yeah. I think, as you say, they used CGI sparingly and they used these enormous models of fortresses, cities, all that stuff, and then just composited in the CGI on top of it. And I think these movies just came along at that perfect time when perhaps CGI hadn't developed to the point where it was ubiquitous and so you had to rely on

to an extent, older-fashioned methods with a bit of that CGI mixed in, and you got the perfect balance. And yeah, they did loads of location shots. If you watch the behind-the-scenes stuff, shooting, especially Fellowship, it was miserable. They were slogging through snow, rain,

rain, mud, you know, but it creates this beautiful, believable world. Again, it gets you immersed in it. If it was done now, it would be done like on a soundstage at Marvel and they'd have a volume screen around them. And, you know, it would just be such a flat, uninteresting, uninvolving experience. So I think these movies are where that combination of great storytelling and the

gradually increasing, improving technology. They just reached that apex of where it was just perfectly balanced. Now we're skewing far too much in favor of technology and storytelling has suffered a great deal because of that. So, you know, this analysis is really useful, but I need more dunking on Matt. So you said that you've seen a lot of Matt's hot takes. On the list of hot takes, where does this hot take fall?

This has got to be up there. I mean, if you're going to make fun of any movie trilogy and be a detractor for it, the worst target you can possibly pick is the Lord of the Rings. I mean, it's like universally beloved. So the only thing I will side with him on to some extent is the Army of the Dead in Return of the King was a little bit of a deus ex machina. In the books, they're...

not as involved. And a lot of the things that they do kind of happen off screen. So yeah, they do kind of come in and save the day a little bit. And it oversimplifies the battle of the Pelennor Fields, sadly. But it's what you have to do. Otherwise, the movie would be like 10 hours long. So I have to ask you also, we talked with the Tolkien expert who literally looks like a hobbit living in a hobbit hole about the Lord of the Rings books. You obviously are familiar with the books. You're familiar with the movies. Yes.

which do you prefer the movies or the books? I mean, it's such a difficult thing to compare. Like you're always going to get a richer experience from reading the books. And I think I would always advocate for people to read more anyway. So I think you get a much deeper story from the books. So I think that is better, but I think these are the best movie adaptations that you could probably hope for. Well, I really appreciate your time. And again, I'll have you on any time to dunk on Matt. It's just one of the joys of my life. Really appreciate it. My pleasure, Ben. Thank you.

This is Dr. Jordan B. Peterson. Watch Parenting, available exclusively on Daily Wire Plus. We're dealing with misbehaviors with our son. Our 13-year-old throws tantrums. Our son turned to some substance abuse. Go to dailywireplus.com today.