Licorice Pizza - Speculation & General Reactions

[jzakko]

And yet Robert Towne found adapting The Great Gatsby impossible and offered to write the masterpiece that is Chinatown for a tenth of the price.

[PaulElroy35]

I put that comment under "spoiler" for a reason.

Seems you might be right for once that sam harpoon seems to be a fake person Haha. His twitter posts are definitely  worth reading whether PTA wrote them or someone else did.

[Montclair]

And yet Robert Towne found adapting The Great Gatsby impossible and offered to write the masterpiece that is Chinatown for a tenth of the price.

Because he(rightly) believed that what makes the book great won't translate to the movies. The fact still remains that coming up with an original story is harder than adapting an existing story. Also, again, Paul isn't adapting "Mason & Dixon" which is how this whole thing got started. End of discussion.

[Shughes]

Very much wishful thinking on my part but could the "longer project" mentioned by PTA be Mason & Dixon?

No, because he wouldn't say that he's having difficulty "writing it" since it's just an adaptation.

That doesnt really rule Mason & Dixon out. If its a tough book to adapt then he could be having trouble "writing it".

Yes, it rules it out. Adapting a novel isn't difficult in comparison to writing an original story. He adapted Inherent Vice by copying it out into Microsoft Word and then cutting it down. Pretty simple.

You're experienced in both, are you? 

What? Do I have to be experienced in both to know that creating an original great work of art is MUCH more difficult than transcribing/copying/tracing an original great work of art? This isn't up for debate.

I would say that both adapting existing material and writing original material would be challenging in their own ways.

As we know, what works in a novel doesn't always work on screen. It isn't a case of just copying it over. In some ways original material can be more freeing because you're not tied to making something work from the novel. In any case, I wouldn't say either would be a simple process.

I would say this is very much up for debate.

As for Paul's own description of the process that you mentioned, I'm sure there's more to it than that. If he made it sound simple I'm almost sure he was being self-effacing and humble.

Dude, I'd say what F. Scott Fitzgerald did when he wrote The Great Gatsby was much more difficult than what the many different screenwriters did when adapting it. That's not up for debate. Also, Paul isn't making "Mason & Dixon" as his next film, that would've been a huge announcement. I'm really not sure why we're even still talking about this?

I'd only add that we're not debating the act of creating a piece of literature and comparing that to adapting it for the screen. We're discussing the original remark that suggested adapting an existing piece of material was simple when compared to writing an original.

We're still talking about it because I disagree, as I feel some others may too. I appreciate that other opinions exist, and would just put forward that I believe both could be equally difficult, and have different specific challenges on a project by project basis.

If the original post rubbed me the wrong way it was simply the certainty with which the opinion was put forward. I am a writer but don't think that makes my opinion more valid than anyone who doesn't write.

To bring us back on topic, all of this is to say that I don't believe Paul hitting difficulties when writing rules out the notion that it could be an adaptation he was working on. (I don't believe he's adapting 'Mason & Dixon' either).

[Lewton]

And yet Robert Towne found adapting The Great Gatsby impossible and offered to write the masterpiece that is Chinatown for a tenth of the price.

Because he(rightly) believed that what makes the book great won't translate to the movies. The fact still remains that coming up with an original story is harder than adapting an existing story. Also, again, Paul isn't adapting "Mason & Dixon" which is how this whole thing got started. End of discussion.

It's totally okay if people want to keep discussing it, though. I mean, in this particular case it's harmless, right?

Lots of new users here lately and it's generally nice to see new voices here, yours included, so please don't understand this as some kind of harsh criticism or whatever. I just think in this case there is something a little imperious (?) about the action of repeatedly saying "Not up for debate" or "End of discussion," etc.., and all within the same short period of time. I don't know how else to put it...I mean, I guess it just sounds like something you'd find in one of PTA's scripts, like one of those petulant conversations between Barry and PSH in Punch-Drunk Love (i.e., "That's that!").

I'm not trying to bring down the vibe here or be rude or anything by saying this. I'm just trying to say that...perhaps we can all just discuss things without slamming the conversational doors down brusquely whenever someone says something that mildly/inoffensively goes in the opposite direction of what someone else said.

EDIT: reworded stuff

[HACKANUT]

I would agree Mason & Dixon is not likely his next project.

Unless he's somehow NEVER mentioned the project his working on now Id think we're much more likely to see the horror or jazz movie. though, I honestly cant remember the source of the "ghost story" idea. Jonny Greenwood made remarks recently about getting some potential project ideas from PTA but where did the "1600s ghost story" first get mentioned? anyone remember?

As for the jazz movie, Haddish said in September (?) that they still discuss it. though it did sound like a peripheral kind of project at the moment. She could be bluffing?

[Alethia]

I would agree Mason & Dixon is not likely his next project.

Unless he's somehow NEVER mentioned the project his working on now Id think we're much more likely to see the horror or jazz movie. though, I honestly cant remember the source of the "ghost story" idea. Jonny Greenwood made remarks recently about getting some potential project ideas from PTA but where did the "1600s ghost story" first get mentioned? anyone remember?

As for the jazz movie, Haddish said in September (?) that they still discuss it. though it did sound like a peripheral kind of project at the moment. She could be bluffing?

I think Haddish actually was the one who mentioned the ghost movie, not as their collaboration per se, just as something he was tinkering with.

[Yes]

https://twitter.com/gerardbush/status/1457506099033100295

[Montclair]

Very much wishful thinking on my part but could the "longer project" mentioned by PTA be Mason & Dixon?

No, because he wouldn't say that he's having difficulty "writing it" since it's just an adaptation.

That doesnt really rule Mason & Dixon out. If its a tough book to adapt then he could be having trouble "writing it".

Yes, it rules it out. Adapting a novel isn't difficult in comparison to writing an original story. He adapted Inherent Vice by copying it out into Microsoft Word and then cutting it down. Pretty simple.

You're experienced in both, are you? 

What? Do I have to be experienced in both to know that creating an original great work of art is MUCH more difficult than transcribing/copying/tracing an original great work of art? This isn't up for debate.

I would say that both adapting existing material and writing original material would be challenging in their own ways.

As we know, what works in a novel doesn't always work on screen. It isn't a case of just copying it over. In some ways original material can be more freeing because you're not tied to making something work from the novel. In any case, I wouldn't say either would be a simple process.

I would say this is very much up for debate.

As for Paul's own description of the process that you mentioned, I'm sure there's more to it than that. If he made it sound simple I'm almost sure he was being self-effacing and humble.

Dude, I'd say what F. Scott Fitzgerald did when he wrote The Great Gatsby was much more difficult than what the many different screenwriters did when adapting it. That's not up for debate. Also, Paul isn't making "Mason & Dixon" as his next film, that would've been a huge announcement. I'm really not sure why we're even still talking about this?

I'd only add that we're not debating the act of creating a piece of literature and comparing that to adapting it for the screen. We're discussing the original remark that suggested adapting an existing piece of material was simple when compared to writing an original.

We're still talking about it because I disagree, as I feel some others may too. I appreciate that other opinions exist, and would just put forward that I believe both could be equally difficult, and have different specific challenges on a project by project basis.

If the original post rubbed me the wrong way it was simply the certainty with which the opinion was put forward. I am a writer but don't think that makes my opinion more valid than anyone who doesn't write.

To bring us back on topic, all of this is to say that I don't believe Paul hitting difficulties when writing rules out the notion that it could be an adaptation he was working on. (I don't believe he's adapting 'Mason & Dixon' either).

Adapting an original source and turning it into a great story is difficult. Writing a great original story is MUCH more difficult. NOBODY who knows ANYTHING about writing would EVER deny this. When Paul said he was hitting difficulties on a much longer project, it definitely was not an adaptation. I promise you. In fact, when the new project gets announced, let's do a ban bet. Are you up for it?

[Montclair]

And yet Robert Towne found adapting The Great Gatsby impossible and offered to write the masterpiece that is Chinatown for a tenth of the price.

Because he(rightly) believed that what makes the book great won't translate to the movies. The fact still remains that coming up with an original story is harder than adapting an existing story. Also, again, Paul isn't adapting "Mason & Dixon" which is how this whole thing got started. End of discussion.

It's totally okay if people want to keep discussing it, though. I mean, in this particular case it's harmless, right?

Lots of new users here lately and it's generally nice to see new voices here, yours included, so please don't understand this as some kind of harsh criticism or whatever. I just think in this case there is something a little imperious (?) about the action of repeatedly saying "Not up for debate" or "End of discussion," etc.., and all within the same short period of time. I don't know how else to put it...I mean, I guess it just sounds like something you'd find in one of PTA's scripts, like one of those petulant conversations between Barry and PSH in Punch-Drunk Love (i.e., "That's that!").

I'm not trying to bring down the vibe here or be rude or anything by saying this. I'm just trying to say that...perhaps we can all just discuss things without slamming the conversational doors down brusquely whenever someone says something that mildly/inoffensively goes in the opposite direction of what someone else said.

EDIT: reworded stuff

"Screenwriting is not real writing, it's -- come on -- it's not. You're not writing a book, you know? You're writing the basics, you know? You are, let's just ... the situation -- where they are and what they're doing should really say everything, you know? And leave room for actors to do something! I always just felt like that was good screenwriting, you know? That good writing kind of belongs in books. That screenwriting should be absolutely as economic as possible."

- Paul Thomas Anderson


And, to your point, I think this needs to be discussed in a separate thread, without clogging up this thread(which is solely about Licorice Pizza). And that's that!

[jzakko]

I seriously doubt the long script was Mason & Dixon or any other adaptation.

And I honestly think that as a rule of thumb, adapting can be easier because you're starting with something that you can be objective about.

I mainly object to your weirdly arrogant and rude tone. Are you a professional writer? Why are you so confident?

Every case is different anyways. I haven't read M&D, but adapting a truly unadaptable book like V. could be harder than writing an original script, I don't think you should be speaking in such extremes.

[Jeremy Blackman]

This isn't up for debate.

The red flags are coming fast and furious at this point, but I wanted to point this one out specifically. You have absolutely no power to preclude or end discussion on a topic or prevent people from responding; for that you can start a blog or a website.

As for the topic, adapting a great work vs. having written that great work are different levels difficulty, but I think there's more nuance to it than you're allowing. The original author and adapting author are different people with different processes, writing an original novel and adapting a novel into a screenplay are wildly different disciplines, etc.

Clearly there's a lot to talk about and plenty of room for debate, so we don't need to be planting our feet and crossing our arms when someone disagrees. I'll ask you to take things down a notch or step away if you feel too heated about this topic.

[Montclair]

I seriously doubt the long script was Mason & Dixon or any other adaptation.

And I honestly think that as a rule of thumb, adapting can be easier because you're starting with something that you can be objective about.

I mainly object to your weirdly arrogant and rude tone. Are you a professional writer? Why are you so confident?

Every case is different anyways. I haven't read M&D, but adapting a truly unadaptable book like V. could be harder than writing an original script, I don't think you should be speaking in such extremes.

Adapting a book like V. is harder than writing the original screenplay for a script like John Wick. Adapting a book like V. is not harder than writing the original screenplay for a script like Pulp Fiction. The degree of difficulty it takes to read a masterpiece of fiction(whether it's a book, an original screenplay that you're remaking or doing a sequel of, an original play, an original tv show, etc) and then adapt it into a great screenplay PALES in comparison to the degree of difficulty it takes to stare at a blank page with absolutely NOTHING to help you -- and write a masterpiece of an original script.

[polkablues]

In general, there's been a recent trend in these threads of people treating a disagreement on the merits or a semantic argument as personal attacks, and we need as a whole to nip that shit in the bud, because it's annoying as all hell and doesn't lend to a robust discussion.

[Rooty Poots]

I just hope it's not Mason & Dixon simply because, so far, I've enjoyed PTA's stories more than I enjoyed that book.