Licorice Pizza - Speculation & General Reactions

[Drill]

https://twitter.com/AndyRichter/status/1457796870386765826

Jeremy O. Harris:



Reggie Watts:

Incredible film

View this post on Instagram

[Pringle]

A momentary diversion.

What are the advantages of the limited-release-for-a-month-then wide vs everwhere-at-once for Licorice Pizza?  Back in the day I suppose it would have built word-of-mouth for a 'smaller' film, perhaps? 

Does all the social media activity actually help the film?  It raises awareness, sure, but does it also somehow 'lessen' the experience for most of the rest of the world that has to wait another 6 weeks when they finally get to see it?  With Paul being so 'secretive', doesn't delaying the release in the Age of Social Media just invite all manner of leaks, reviews, etc?  Or is all awareness good awareness?

3 full weeks of "industry" screenings in L.A. would seem to be a deliberate attempt to garner nominations, no?  (Too cynical?) 

I don't really know my marketing rules--how do you think this current strategy will serve the film?

I think one reason is that it looks a lot better if you have a movie that does great in limited release and has buzz going wide as opposed to having your movie finish 7th at the box office and get written off as a failure immediately.

[Montclair]

Clearly, someone of Paul Thomas Anderson's stature deserves a level of pre-judging that you would never go to for most directors.

I agree! It is perfectly reasonable to pre-judge that you'll probably like the latest movie from one of your favorite directors. 

I agree! It's perfectly reasonable to pre-judge that you'll like the latest movie from one of your favorite directors and still believe that the odds of you liking it on the level of some of his most impressive work are low based on the words that came out of one of your favorite directors' mouth.

Are you going for cute or obnoxious? Playful argument is great, but your posts are approaching a level of annoyingness that hasn't been seen on this message board in a very long time. The troll-saturation-level of posts like these is way too high, my friend.

I know you're trying to construct clever debate posts, and that requires a certain level of bad-faith interpretation, but I think this is way simpler than you're willing to admit. Vaguely anticipating with generic optimism seems pretty different from constructing an elaborate preconception.

That said, I don't want to say "you're doing it wrong," because that seems confrontational and patronizing. If this is your path, there's no point in anyone trying to dissuade you.

Why is it that voicing some concern is dismissed as "trolling?" Licorice Pizza looks like it'll be pretty good. Paul saying he was working on something that he struggled with(and had to take a break from in order to write this) is very interesting. Not just to me but to a lot of people. For many of Paul's fans, it means that both LP and the piece he's struggling with will be very good movies. For some, it means that maybe LP will be very good but less of a challenge than whatever he's working on next. Also, some of the reviews are describing it as having a homey quality to it as does Paul. That sounds cool, but it also sounds like a lighter approach than what we're used to from him. These are not bad faith interpretations, these are just thoughts based on the early words of the filmmaker and audience. I will see Licorice Pizza and I am 99.9% sure I will greatly enjoy it. I'm only about 40% sure I'll enjoy it on the level of his heavier and more artistically demanding movies. That's not trolling or being annoying, that's just noticing patterns in a movie director's work.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Montclair - re: trolling, I'm not referring to your concerns about LP (as I said, that's your prerogative). I'm referring to your posting style. I could be wrong, but it definitely seems like you're purposefully misinterpreting people's words just to keep an argument going. And more specifically, the thing where you construct your reply by mocking (or parodying?) the original post... that's not great.

[pynchonikon]

"This movie is home-made so it's not that big deal of a film" LOL #1 - "Homey quality" does NOT automatically mean minor quality

"PTA himself referred to this film as a break" LOL #2 - Paul Thomas Anderson has NOT said or implied that his new movie is a minor one in his filmography

"I read that it's not a demanding film artistically" LOL #3 -  Many reactions (and opinions I've collected myself from people who have SEEN it) mention that he has directed the shit out of it, and that it's a very impressive film artistically.

[Montclair]

Montclair - re: trolling, I'm not referring to your concerns about LP (as I said, that's your prerogative). I'm referring to your posting style. I could be wrong, but it definitely seems like you're purposefully misinterpreting people's words just to keep an argument going. And more specifically, the thing where you construct your reply by mocking (or parodying?) the original post... that's not great.

This actually brings me back to the discussion about adapting somebody else's work for the screen vs writing your own original screenplay. Paul has adapted only two works. The first was a very loose adaptation of "Oil" by Upton Sinclair and it became one of the greatest movies of all time. The other was an extremely faithful(minus the Vegas scene) adaptation of Inherent Vice and it became a pretty polarizing movie. IV was the first time the notoriously reclusive author allowed a work of his to be adapted and there was a certain amount of pressure on Paul to adapt it without loosely creating his own movie like he did with TWBB or like Tarantino did with Jackie Brown. One of the reasons that Inherent Vice didn't work as well as all of his other movies is because in dealing with Pynchon, Paul wasn't ready to honor the age old adage of "kill your idols." This caused him a noticeable inability to grow and to do his own thing while making the movie. I think the same holds true with the vast majority of posters on this message board. You're unable to "kill your idols" which is causing you an inability to grow and have your own opinion. It's okay to allow others to suggest that Paul is capable of making something less than a masterpiece or less than what he's achieved in the past. An All-Star player having a slightly "off" game is still performing at a level much higher than very good players having one of their best games. The previews, his quotes about how and why this movie came to fruition and early reviews are pointing towards that. And that's okay.

[jviness02]

The only film he's done that I would consider "minor" is Sydney.  I think this conversation as a whole is rather meaningless.  I thought "minor" was assigned to works that weren't up to par, not based on their length or scope. Almost all of Bergman's films are 90 minutes. Did he just make minor films?

[Lots of Bees]

Montclair - re: trolling, I'm not referring to your concerns about LP (as I said, that's your prerogative). I'm referring to your posting style. I could be wrong, but it definitely seems like you're purposefully misinterpreting people's words just to keep an argument going. And more specifically, the thing where you construct your reply by mocking (or parodying?) the original post... that's not great.

This actually brings me back to the discussion about adapting somebody else's work for the screen vs writing your own original screenplay. Paul has adapted only two works. The first was a very loose adaptation of "Oil" by Upton Sinclair and it became one of the greatest movies of all time. The other was an extremely faithful(minus the Vegas scene) adaptation of Inherent Vice and it became a pretty polarizing movie. IV was the first time the notoriously reclusive author allowed a work of his to be adapted and there was a certain amount of pressure on Paul to adapt it without loosely creating his own movie like he did with TWBB or like Tarantino did with Jackie Brown. One of the reasons that Inherent Vice didn't work as well as all of his other movies is because in dealing with Pynchon, Paul wasn't ready to honor the age old adage of "kill your idols." This caused him a noticeable inability to grow and to do his own thing while making the movie. I think the same holds true with the vast majority of posters on this message board. You're unable to "kill your idols" which is causing you an inability to grow and have your own opinion. It's okay to allow others to suggest that Paul is capable of making something less than a masterpiece or less than what he's achieved in the past. An All-Star player having a slightly "off" game is still performing at a level much higher than very good players having one of their best games. The previews, his quotes about how and why this movie came to fruition and early reviews are pointing towards that. And that's okay.

Your opinion on Inherent Vice, the difficulty of adapting vs writing an original script, I couldn't care less.
But the consensus is very clearly NOT that this is an "off" game for him. And that's where you are clearly willfully misinterpreting people's words, as well as emphasizing a single quote (from PTA himself! Who NEVER said this was a minor film!) over dozens and dozens of absolutely stellar reactions.

EDIT: sorry if "couldn't care less" sounds dismissive of your views. Don't mean it that way. Just don't care about having that conversation rn.

[Montclair]

"This movie is home-made so it's not that big deal of a film" LOL #1 - "Homey quality" does NOT automatically mean minor quality

"PTA himself referred to this film as a break" LOL #2 - Paul Thomas Anderson has NOT said or implied that his new movie is a minor one in his filmography

"I read that it's not a demanding film artistically" LOL #3 -  Many reactions (and opinions I've collected myself from people who have SEEN it) mention that he has directed the shit out of it, and that it's a very impressive film artistically.

Him making a film that has a homey quality, was conceived during a break from struggling with writing something else and reactions saying it's not as demanding artistically doesn't mean that it's minor or not very well directed in comparison to what is churned out of the Hollywood factory. It just sounds like a minor, lightweight workout in comparison to BN, TMagnolia, TWBB and The Master. I liked Sydney, I liked Inherent Vice, I liked Punch Drunk Love and I thought Phantom Thread was brilliant. None of those movies were compared to something on the level of Lady Bird by critics. None of those movies had young friends of the family cast as the main characters in their first professional acting experience. None of those movies were written in order to do something he knew he could write after hitting a roadblock with a bigger story he was struggling with. These things make me think everyone on this board is ready to see a movie they'll like, myself included. It doesn't make me think that this will be a movie where Paul really tries to push himself to grow in a big way as an artist.

[Montclair]

The only film he's done that I would consider "minor" is Sydney.  I think this conversation as a whole is rather meaningless.  I thought "minor" was assigned to works that weren't up to par, not based on their length or scope. Almost all of Bergman's films are 90 minutes. Did he just make minor films?

Minor means that it's not up to par in comparison to either other works of art or specifically to the artist's works of art. In the case of Paul, I'm not saying Sydney, PDL and IV aren't up to par with other movies, I'm saying they aren't up to par with the movies Paul has done that really made a big impact on the world of film as well as the craft itself. Almost all of Bergman's films are 90 minutes and almost all of Paul's films are 150 minutes. I think they both clearly have a very defined amount of time that they do their greatest work in.

[Montclair]

Montclair - re: trolling, I'm not referring to your concerns about LP (as I said, that's your prerogative). I'm referring to your posting style. I could be wrong, but it definitely seems like you're purposefully misinterpreting people's words just to keep an argument going. And more specifically, the thing where you construct your reply by mocking (or parodying?) the original post... that's not great.

This actually brings me back to the discussion about adapting somebody else's work for the screen vs writing your own original screenplay. Paul has adapted only two works. The first was a very loose adaptation of "Oil" by Upton Sinclair and it became one of the greatest movies of all time. The other was an extremely faithful(minus the Vegas scene) adaptation of Inherent Vice and it became a pretty polarizing movie. IV was the first time the notoriously reclusive author allowed a work of his to be adapted and there was a certain amount of pressure on Paul to adapt it without loosely creating his own movie like he did with TWBB or like Tarantino did with Jackie Brown. One of the reasons that Inherent Vice didn't work as well as all of his other movies is because in dealing with Pynchon, Paul wasn't ready to honor the age old adage of "kill your idols." This caused him a noticeable inability to grow and to do his own thing while making the movie. I think the same holds true with the vast majority of posters on this message board. You're unable to "kill your idols" which is causing you an inability to grow and have your own opinion. It's okay to allow others to suggest that Paul is capable of making something less than a masterpiece or less than what he's achieved in the past. An All-Star player having a slightly "off" game is still performing at a level much higher than very good players having one of their best games. The previews, his quotes about how and why this movie came to fruition and early reviews are pointing towards that. And that's okay.

Your opinion on Inherent Vice, the difficulty of adapting vs writing an original script, I couldn't care less.
But the consensus is very clearly NOT that this is an "off" game for him. And that's where you are clearly willfully misinterpreting people's words, as well as emphasizing a single quote (from PTA himself! Who NEVER said this was a minor film!) over dozens and dozens of absolutely stellar reactions.

EDIT: sorry if "couldn't care less" sounds dismissive of your views. Don't mean it that way. Just don't care about having that conversation rn.

I'd argue that the consensus is very clear that in comparison to his works on a bigger scale that this is an off night for the level of greatness we expect from him. I never claimed that PTA said this was a minor film. I'm interpreting other people's quotes and a few quotes from him that suggest this was a fun movie he made with family and friends. My interpretation of that is that he didn't get in the same zone he was in for BN, Magnolia, TWBB, IV and The Master. I enjoy Sydney and PDL but if they came out today, I'd wait for them to come on video and enjoy them without feeling as if I missed out on an incredible theater experience.

[Lots of Bees]

Montclair - re: trolling, I'm not referring to your concerns about LP (as I said, that's your prerogative). I'm referring to your posting style. I could be wrong, but it definitely seems like you're purposefully misinterpreting people's words just to keep an argument going. And more specifically, the thing where you construct your reply by mocking (or parodying?) the original post... that's not great.

This actually brings me back to the discussion about adapting somebody else's work for the screen vs writing your own original screenplay. Paul has adapted only two works. The first was a very loose adaptation of "Oil" by Upton Sinclair and it became one of the greatest movies of all time. The other was an extremely faithful(minus the Vegas scene) adaptation of Inherent Vice and it became a pretty polarizing movie. IV was the first time the notoriously reclusive author allowed a work of his to be adapted and there was a certain amount of pressure on Paul to adapt it without loosely creating his own movie like he did with TWBB or like Tarantino did with Jackie Brown. One of the reasons that Inherent Vice didn't work as well as all of his other movies is because in dealing with Pynchon, Paul wasn't ready to honor the age old adage of "kill your idols." This caused him a noticeable inability to grow and to do his own thing while making the movie. I think the same holds true with the vast majority of posters on this message board. You're unable to "kill your idols" which is causing you an inability to grow and have your own opinion. It's okay to allow others to suggest that Paul is capable of making something less than a masterpiece or less than what he's achieved in the past. An All-Star player having a slightly "off" game is still performing at a level much higher than very good players having one of their best games. The previews, his quotes about how and why this movie came to fruition and early reviews are pointing towards that. And that's okay.

Your opinion on Inherent Vice, the difficulty of adapting vs writing an original script, I couldn't care less.
But the consensus is very clearly NOT that this is an "off" game for him. And that's where you are clearly willfully misinterpreting people's words, as well as emphasizing a single quote (from PTA himself! Who NEVER said this was a minor film!) over dozens and dozens of absolutely stellar reactions.

EDIT: sorry if "couldn't care less" sounds dismissive of your views. Don't mean it that way. Just don't care about having that conversation rn.

I'd argue that the consensus is very clear that in comparison to his works on a bigger scale that this is an off night for the level of greatness we expect from him. I never claimed that PTA said this was a minor film. I'm interpreting other people's quotes and a few quotes from him that suggest this was a fun movie he made with family and friends. My interpretation of that is that he didn't get in the same zone he was in for BN, Magnolia, TWBB, IV and The Master. I enjoy Sydney and PDL but if they came out today, I'd wait for them to come on video and enjoy them without feeling as if I missed out on an incredible theater experience.

I feel like you're reaching and cherry picking comments for that interpretation. But more importantly, I do hope you go to the theater or at least see it before it comes out on VOD. I'd love to hear your actual opinion on the movie, not just predictions.
Don't really understand why you'd take such a strong stance on not even SEEING it, it's like you'd rather just assume what the movie is than make up your own mind. And we've all spent more than 2h13min on this page talking about it, I'm sure there's time to at least get (and give everybody else) some closure and go see the thing instead of waiting like 6 months.

[Montclair]

Montclair - re: trolling, I'm not referring to your concerns about LP (as I said, that's your prerogative). I'm referring to your posting style. I could be wrong, but it definitely seems like you're purposefully misinterpreting people's words just to keep an argument going. And more specifically, the thing where you construct your reply by mocking (or parodying?) the original post... that's not great.

This actually brings me back to the discussion about adapting somebody else's work for the screen vs writing your own original screenplay. Paul has adapted only two works. The first was a very loose adaptation of "Oil" by Upton Sinclair and it became one of the greatest movies of all time. The other was an extremely faithful(minus the Vegas scene) adaptation of Inherent Vice and it became a pretty polarizing movie. IV was the first time the notoriously reclusive author allowed a work of his to be adapted and there was a certain amount of pressure on Paul to adapt it without loosely creating his own movie like he did with TWBB or like Tarantino did with Jackie Brown. One of the reasons that Inherent Vice didn't work as well as all of his other movies is because in dealing with Pynchon, Paul wasn't ready to honor the age old adage of "kill your idols." This caused him a noticeable inability to grow and to do his own thing while making the movie. I think the same holds true with the vast majority of posters on this message board. You're unable to "kill your idols" which is causing you an inability to grow and have your own opinion. It's okay to allow others to suggest that Paul is capable of making something less than a masterpiece or less than what he's achieved in the past. An All-Star player having a slightly "off" game is still performing at a level much higher than very good players having one of their best games. The previews, his quotes about how and why this movie came to fruition and early reviews are pointing towards that. And that's okay.

Your opinion on Inherent Vice, the difficulty of adapting vs writing an original script, I couldn't care less.
But the consensus is very clearly NOT that this is an "off" game for him. And that's where you are clearly willfully misinterpreting people's words, as well as emphasizing a single quote (from PTA himself! Who NEVER said this was a minor film!) over dozens and dozens of absolutely stellar reactions.

EDIT: sorry if "couldn't care less" sounds dismissive of your views. Don't mean it that way. Just don't care about having that conversation rn.

I'd argue that the consensus is very clear that in comparison to his works on a bigger scale that this is an off night for the level of greatness we expect from him. I never claimed that PTA said this was a minor film. I'm interpreting other people's quotes and a few quotes from him that suggest this was a fun movie he made with family and friends. My interpretation of that is that he didn't get in the same zone he was in for BN, Magnolia, TWBB, IV and The Master. I enjoy Sydney and PDL but if they came out today, I'd wait for them to come on video and enjoy them without feeling as if I missed out on an incredible theater experience.

I feel like you're reaching and cherry picking comments for that interpretation. But more importantly, I do hope you go to the theater or at least see it before it comes out on VOD. I'd love to hear your actual opinion on the movie, not just predictions.
Don't really understand why you'd take such a strong stance on not even SEEING it, it's like you'd rather just assume what the movie is than make up your own mind. And we've all spent more than 2h13min on this page talking about it, I'm sure there's time to at least get (and give everybody else) some closure and go see the thing instead of waiting like 6 months.

In all seriousness, what motivation would I have for cherry picking those comments? I'm not taking a strong stance on not seeing it. I've said time and time again that I will see it. Waiting another 6 months isn't that long for this movie. And, when I see it, I'll definitely share my opinion.

[jviness02]

The only film he's done that I would consider "minor" is Sydney.  I think this conversation as a whole is rather meaningless.  I thought "minor" was assigned to works that weren't up to par, not based on their length or scope. Almost all of Bergman's films are 90 minutes. Did he just make minor films?

Minor means that it's not up to par in comparison to either other works of art or specifically to the artist's works of art. In the case of Paul, I'm not saying Sydney, PDL and IV aren't up to par with other movies, I'm saying they aren't up to par with the movies Paul has done that really made a big impact on the world of film as well as the craft itself. Almost all of Bergman's films are 90 minutes and almost all of Paul's films are 150 minutes. I think they both clearly have a very defined amount of time that they do their greatest work in.

Punch Drunk Love is a lot of filmmaker's favorite PTA film(Safdies, Apatow, Bong Joon-Ho, Guillermo Del Toro), but it's still minor by your "impact of the world of film and craft itself" definition? Why not just say it's not your favorite and minor in your opinion? And that brings back to the ultimate point: just as one film may be minor to me, but an essential to you,  we should wait and see the work itself before we use such labels.

For example, I consider The Master his best film and therefore an essential, but a lot of my film pals think it's a PTA deep cut at best.

[Lots of Bees]

Most recent letterboxd reviews
And some tweets!

https://twitter.com/eddiesaIts/status/1457949715069169668
https://twitter.com/lindazge/status/1457942156018999296
https://twitter.com/drewrushline/status/1457952502918303748

Montclair not ignoring you I hope you see it and love it, you clearly love PTA so never any hard feelings, I just don't wanna keep clogging up this thread for everybody else so I'm done responding.