Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "The Critical Drinker"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Alan Because women don't think they look as good with big pockets, and so women won't buy them. My sister always seemed partial to Wrangler's because of the cut. A snug pair of Wranglers squeezes a woman in all the right places. Decent pockets. Not the best pockets, but decent.
When money stopped being an issue, I started going with Carhartt's, because they were thicker, their zippers were rugged, and you could buy the double-fronts over the knees. You feel bulletproof in them, even if you're spending time on your knees, and they last forever.
But I bet if you looked around all the different brands at Eddie Bauer or some other sportsman outfit, you'd find some made-for-women clothing that looks good and has decent pockets. I imagine it's pretty hit-or-miss.
But maybe this isn't really a problem, at all. Maybe it's the universe telling you there's a niche for good blue jeans with good pockets, made for women. Put your mind to it, I bet you could make men jealous.
3
-
3
-
@TafTabTah There's a multitude of reasons. More parents less interested in their kids. More free-range kids. More super-sheltered kids. Lowering standards in education, because everybody needs to be educated, whether they want it, like it, or are suited for it or not. The canonization of entitlement. The celebration of weakness and emotional helplessness.
I'd say it's all just the natural consequence of good times breeding weak people, but there are major milestones in the 20th Century, like the income tax, fiat currency, "emergency" war measures that remained in force for decades after the fall of Nazi Germany, the deconstruction of free-market capitalism when socialism couldn't be sold on its own merits, creeping fascism, ...
A lot of what alarms people, NOW, is less about how bad things are and more about the fact that they're not hiding what they've been doing under the radar for a long time. The Internet giving people alternate sources of information exposed a lot of BS to a lot of people that never would've broken through otherwise.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh, I don't know. Look what Avatar achieved, visually. I think Peter Jackson set a very high bar. He was fortunate enough to get a 3-movie commitment out of the gate. He stretched the movie format to the breaking point of darn near 3 hours per installment, but that's as close as Hollywood's business model can probably stretch. With three long movies, the trilogy received a treatment that even Tolkien fans felt did a good job.
There were some things I wanted to see and didn't, like "The Scouring of the Shire." I would have liked it more if it ran a whole 'nother hour or two for the bits after the fall of Sauron. Tolkien went into some detail about Aragorn's ending and the sad story of Arwen's loneliness. I'd happily sit through to the bittersweet end.
So maybe the thesis is correct, at least in a way, because Hollywood is just not built to provide anything comparable to Jackson's legendary trilogy. But I try to look beyond Hollywood as we know it. I think there's still a buck to be made making great movies, and some other business model that's less top-down and more collaborative with more of a profit-sharing approach, where a lot of people can make a decent amount of money putting projects together as more of a team, where everyone stands to make out well if the project succeeds.
Look at how music has become much more of a middle-class phenomenon and how the studio system in music is hitting a wall. It's just too easy to create your own label and keep all the proceeds. A lot more people are actually succeeding in the music business. They're not charting or anything the trades would bother to report on, but they'll have a local following and an Internet following. Maybe they never sell a million CDs, but they're selling something like 10,000, plus whatever they make doing live shows, they're living pretty good.
2
-
I can get trying to reach for something better/different. Nature does this all the time through random mutations, most of which are not good for survival. Edison said "1% inspiration, 99% perspiration." As an "inspiration" kind of guy, I usually don't put in the perspiration it takes to make it happen, or end up making it happy in half-ass fashion. Hat tip for Nolan reaching for the concept AND putting in the perspiration. But even with all of that, it's REALLY hard to get it right.
When it comes to movie-making, though, trying to be new seems to get in the way of doing what works. Tough balancing act.
Most of the movies I'd like to see would run 8 or 10 hours, which is what it took me to slurp up my first reading of "DUNE," and require multiple sittings, especially after Netflix introduced me to binge-watching and stories unfolding over many hours, instead of the standard 2 hours. I did DUNE in one marathon sitting, in my first (and one of only a handful) of baby-sitting gigs, when the lady down the street was pumping out yet ANOTHER son, while my big sister was hospitalized with mono. I'd never had such responsibility for others, before, and I didn't dare sleep that night. So I read "DUNE" all night, and I was so into it - after the McGavins' boys took me through their morning bath and breakfast drill. I just stood back and tried to make sure nobody drowned...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@samuelmartens9390 Maybe not my FAVORITE part, but definitely a most gratifying denouement, especially Galadriel's Gift and the new Mallorn.
I can see why it'd be tough to include in the original and very long trilogy without seeming anti-climactic to most noobs. Maybe a standalone for geeks? I can't see them investing a whole lot in it, after the bigger story that had just ended.
I would happily sit through another hour or more tacked on to Return of the King, but I'm not sure how anybody could see it as a big money-maker and giving it the kind of investment. Then again, the only special effect would be hobbits-vs-men scenes, and most of that can be handled with pretty mundane camera tricks.
I think we're seeing a migration away from mass society and old funding formulas/business models for higher-end movie production. There's definitely a convergence between capabilities of big studios and the independents. I just stumbled across a random video where guys were using drones, scale models, and clever camera work to create some outstanding imagery that's one step removed from the best Hollywood's putting out.
I can imagine people like that forming co-ops to collaborate on big projects, one day. Maybe we're not there, yet, but I can definitely see a convergence taking place between what little guys can do and what the big studios are capable of doing. And the big studios can't get out of their own way. They've diverged so far from their customers that I don't think they're going to be economically viable for much longer. They're too hemmed in by their own delusions, hang-ups and political religions.
2
-
2