Hi, this is Ava from Vanta. In today's digital world, compliance regulations are changing constantly,

and earning customer trust has never mattered more. Vanta helps companies get compliant fast and stay

secure, with the most advanced AI automation and continuous monitoring out there. So whether

you're a startup going for your first SOC 2 or ISO-27,001, or a growing

enterprise managing vendor risk, Banta makes it quick, easy, and scalable, and I'm not to

saying that because I work here. Get started today at banta.com.

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's 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 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 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, I have exactly the same issue with Matt's take. I mean, I think it's

actually his second-worth movie take after The Dark Night 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 a thousand 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 think that's what allows people to get so immersed into these movies so effectively.

...