Scott, Byrd...Key? Barrie, Anyway...

With or without his most famous creation, and whether or not he's the Question that's being looked for... there's something about Sir J.M. Barrie that Jeopardy! likes.


Buttercup watched along with me...I can still hear her chuckling.  Of course, I knew the Question.  But not so much confidently.  It's one of those bits that I get jumbled up.  I mentioned Scott first, then Byrd or Key.  I knew it had to be one of them.  Fortunately, my first instinct won out.

Category

Correct Question:
Who is Robert F. Scott?



Fun trivia:  Barrie had been the godfather of Scott's son.  His name?  Peter, naturally.

In an episode not far away (perhaps two) there's another reference to Pan-ish things.  But reference only, not a "Question."  Buttercup said I had to include it, too.

Correct Question:
Who is Wendy Wasserstein?

Yep, I knew it.  Knox did The Heidi Chronicles during my time there.  Laughter designed the set and many of my friends including Sunshine had been in it.

New Napoleon Is Dynamite!

HECK YES!

After seeing it, I thought the movie Napoleon Dynamite would work as a TV series. I, for one, wanted more of these characters. But a sequel seemed beyond the limits of what could be done. What on earth would constitute a good enough plotline to sustain a film? But a series? That’s an open invitation to explore many avenues of comedy without striving or requiring it to be so big. The mundane and quirky lives of these strange people can be showcased in perfectly sized vignettes. After all, the movie had been not much more than that to begin with, right?

Someone else thought so, too, and I am glad of it. For it DOES work. Very well. And they had the excellent idea of doing it in animation.

Buttercup had been skeptical at first, but given that it’s Napoleon Dynamite and has all the original cast voicing their characters, she’d been willing to give it a try. (She’d also laughed at the ads.) She wound up cracking up just as much as me. She now whole-heartedly agrees - it’s a marvelous TV show.

I’m not sure what it is about this wacky world. Much of it doesn’t seem as if it should be funny at all. It just IS. And I’m happy to say that whatever worked in the movie is still carrying the mojo for the cartoon. Plus, there's the added bonus of having the freedom to be THAT much wackier to [moon]boot. Instead of needing Jon Heder to pilot a jet ski and daringly make a sweet jump, Napoleon and friends can now just do it. Tina the Llama can be helping Napoleon with his exercises. Aaron Ruell doesn’t have to master the Fushigi Magic Gravity Ball... but his cartoon Kip self certainly can with no trouble. To great hilarity. And I must say that it’s a sheer delight to have Grandma be around. She’s just as I pictured her in daily life. (She’d been gone most of the movie.)



Water skiing, too!



Also, the opening sequence is just right.  It's funny AND shows us all the main characters in a way that's not forced.  And I adore the way Napoleon runs.  How did they get that calm-psycho quality of Heder into a drawing?   Not sure, but I'm sure it's there.

Hooray for everyone involved. I applaud. I wipe tears of laughter from my eyes and look forward to more episodes of this SWEET show.

Viva Cartoon Dynamite!



Here's THE THING

You might recall I've been anticipating the new movie of The Thing.  I'd been interested for another reason beyond the desire to see more of a good (cough) thing.  What really attracted me is the attitude, promises and vision of the man who brought it to the screen, Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr.  In a nutshell:  When the time came that they wanted to remake the property, he came along saying 'Not, a remake... a prequel.'  It would be the same premise, so in essence, a remake, but it would tie into the famous and beloved version by John Carpenter by showing the events of the Norwegian base that the Carpenter characters come across.  And then, end as the other movie began.  All done with utter respect and accuracy out of love.

I'm happy to say that Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr. delivered.  Exactly what he professed to do.

Funnily enough, I longed to see how that axe would get lodged in the door.  And when it finally happened, I wanted to applaud.  I wouldn't have guessed that to be the scenario.  Such clever use of a cherished aspect of the original film to achieve it, too.  And a wee bit of a joke made out of it to boot.  But so much more made me love it than inventive axe usage.

Is it a remake?  Well, yes, but decidedly NO.  The idea of being trapped/isolated in a harsh frozen environment and not able to trust anyone because they might be the Thing remains.  So in that sense, it's the same movie over again.  But other elements make it new and fresh.

For one (cough) thing, it is in fact the prequel.  We're treated to finding the Thing and the joys and eventual horror that come with such a discovery.  Most importantly, though, it enabled the incorporaton of a classic storyline.  The monster movie!  It worked very well.  Since it deals with previous events, it only makes sense that the creature would run around "out in the open."  After all, it's a potentinally giant contorted beastie with huge set (or sets!) of jaws with the ability to grab victims with tentacles or claws.  I mean, really, who would challenge it?  As you probably know from the first movie, a flamethrower is the humans' friend.  Torching the hell out of the Thing happens a lot (again, in both movies.)  If YOU were the Thing, you'd eventually learn that being burned up in this place is a fact of life.  Thus, it would adapt.  Safer to remain hidden and hide AS other beings.  Don't get me wrong, it does that as well in this movie.  The "could be anyone of us" theme is core.  But again, the Thing tries running amok as a monster, chasing the humans through halls and such.  A welcome dimension to the film/concept/story and a terrific delight.

Matching up all the visuals, both sets and items (like the burnt up twisted mass of human and monster that the Carpenter folk found) all were executed beautifully.  When we entered the room that had the giant block of ice, yeah, I got the chills.  And it all felt like the original film.

And when they also began to rehash (more like homage) a part of the original story/movie, namely the "test" for how to determine who the monster is... they then took it away.  Something happens resulting that they are unable to proceed.  But the scene remains.  How?  A believable alternative solution as to how to expose the monster arises.  However, it again adds another dimension to the familiar tale.  The new method is not foolproof.  All it can say is this person might be the monster.  What a great extra level of psychological torture, no?

It had been great not just to see the reason for the axe, but how other key incidents/objects in Carpenter's played out.  Yet it didn't answer all the questions.  I'm glad.  I don't think it should.  Mystery and the unknown is essential to this story.  We also don't have a clear picture of what the Thing looked like when they found it.  It's in ice, remember?  So it's not all that easy to see.  And when it escape, boy howdy!, is it quick.  Quick enough to make me use the words "boy howdy!"

Reportedly this new movie would utilize the same type of special effects as the Carpenter movie.  The tendency nowadays is to just CGI it.  But van Heijningen, Jr. didn't want that.  It had to have the same look as the original if it were to be accepted as on par and part of it.  So they went with animatronics and laytex and all the old school wizardry.  A little CGI, yes, but only when it couldn't be done otherwise or to "clean up" an existing effect.  And it's truly, for my money, exactly that.  It has the same beautiful ickiness of the original.

I also must give credit to Mary Elizabeth Winstead.  I knew her as Ramona Flowers in one of my absoulte favorites Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.  But she's not an elusive cute chick in this flick.  She's a downright action hero.  And she looked taller, to be honest.  van Heijningen, Jr. had been right.  Using a woman as the main character to counter balance the inmitable Kurt Russell helped seal the deal.  Winstead played it with gusto.  Showing the character's vulnerability but ability to rise to the occasion and take charge.  Brava! 

Unfortunately, Buttercup didn't like as much as me.  She had trouble articulating her point of view, but she felt there were no new ideas presented.  Not in the sense of newness that' I've already mentioned, but in terms of it seemed "just any old monster movie," or so is my take on what she'd meant from how she expressed herself.  My response is, well, it's meant to be a backwards extension of Carpenter's film.  Thus, it should have been in a "as before" kind of mode. 'Tis a shame she didn't love it, too, as Buttercup and I usually agree.  But she didn't hate it.  She said she isn't sorry she went.  And thought the F/X were good and such.

I'm going to see it again.  I texted a college friend of mine that I haven't seen in years.  He's a HUGE fan of Carpenter's The Thing.  He said he's been curious about it... and now I get to go with him and hope that he, too, feels the joy of its horrors.

For me, though:
All in all, a triumph.  It's rare when you receive exactly what you wanted.  Especially from Hollywood.

MOVING Right Along...

All righty...

Looks like I have the Dedication and Acknowledgements composed.  In the end, I wound deciding to keep it short and sweet instead of a long winded ramble.  Which, as you might already have guessed, is typical of me.  At least when speaking.  I've got someone looking at it for me and I'll be sure to re-visit it myself in a bit.  But it's all coming together.  Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between is oh-so-near!

In terms of explaining my absences, suffice to say that part of the upheaval of which I've been mentioning is a move.  Yes, I'll be changing my residence soon.  I'll still be in Chicago, though.  But I'm in no hurry.  Moving is always so stressful!   I don't have a set schedule of when I need to be 'out' so I'm taking it leisurely.  It works out nicely, as I'm intermixing the "going through my stuff" alongside going out socially with Buttercup, Josiecat, Clara & Banky and Gil.  Not to mention working on the book!  I also had a great weekened with my best friend Laughter.  Oh - I wound up sick for a while (hospital visit required!) but I'm fine now, nothing to worry about...

I hope to be more attentive once all the packing and such are done... and then unpacked in my new place.

“It’s all very well to say you are waiting; so am I waiting.”



(From a production of Waiting for Godot)



Once again I apologize for being absent from posting lately.  The upheaval of which I spoke in an earlier post is, in fact, still in progess.  Dealing with the ramifications of it in addition to the regular aspects of my life doesn't leave as much room to go ranting on the internet.

But it doesn't mean I haven't been productive.

The back cover to Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between has been finalized, and comes as such at having been tweaked yet again since I'd thought it done before.  As it says in Peter Pan's NeverWorld: Wisdom knows finished from done.

The Foreword has also been composed and recomposed and revised and overhauled and... well, you get the idea.  It's also now in its final form.  I've been having a go at the Acknowledgements page.  Turns out it's difficult finding a sincere balance to convey the level of gratitude and deeds without sounding overly sappy.  Don't worry, I'll get it down on paper.  Other than the 'technical info about the book' page, we're drawing very close to bringing the novel to you all.

Thanks for being so patient.  I hope you understand my adherence to getting it "just right" before you see it.

In other news, I heard from two of the characters in What If It's a Trick Question? the other night at Buttercup's place.  And you know what they finally told me?  How to defeat the "big bad" in the sequel.  I have to tell you, I've been wondering about it!  And now I know.  And it's pretty clever of them.

I also find myself thinking of Thom and Carabas a bit more than usual.  Of course, it's largely due to Josiecat often bringing up Thom and his story.  She loves him so!

Then there's the generating of new angles and tidbits for my "ghost story" on the backburner.

I've nary a clue as to which of these will wind up being my next all-consuming project once the Peter Pan interquel is available... but I'm sure I'll have a good time doing it!

*Title of post  is a quote from Peter and Wendy

Peter Pan and Macy's

So last night Buttercup and I watched this week's episode of Teen Wolf. She's my watching partner. I don't view it until we can get together in front of my big screen. For the record, still love the show. Even this far into the season (only one episode left as of now) scenes from (or references to) the movie source material manifest in amusing ways. Bravo to all.

But the real point of this post is a commercial that aired quite a few times.  I caught it even in fast-forward.  But then, with the big glowing word 'Wendy' on the screen how could I miss it?

Apparently Macy's (yes, the store) has a forthcoming series called Wendy.  And you guessed right - it's a take on the famous Barrie tale.  Here, Peter Pan is called Pete.  It's updated, you see.  Am I enraged?  No, of course not.  Why?  As I've said before, I applaud reinterpretatons or reimaginings.  Take a spin on this amazing story.  It's only when it's meant to be contiguous to Barrie and fails that irks me.  Anyway, it looks like fun.  Kind of a Melrose Place meets Peter Pan.

I'd not been able to find much of it on the ol' interwebs.  But looking again I found all the answers posted by some nice person named Lauren on 'Yahoo! Answers' here.

Essentially it's a web series showcasing their lines loosely based on the "timeless story" (as it says.)  Macy's paired with Alloy Entertainment.  It premieres September 25th. 

Putting the THUNDER Back in the 80's CATS

Well, I’m happy to be able to report that yet another “reboot” has been totally worth it. Cartoon Network has released a new version of the 80’s cartoon Thundercats. And it’s to purr about.

I liked the original show, but I wouldn’t say I’d been a true fan of it. But that doesn’t affect my opinion of how well it compares. For both Bart and Buttercup, who would count themselves among those enthralled with it, also really like this new take on it.

For one thing, the animation is superior. But that’s really no difficult task.

What I like best about the new Thundercats is that it begins further back in time. Nutshell: A handful of surviving Thundercats (including the heir to the throne) are forced to leave their planet of Thundera, only to be pursued and thwarted by the “villains” of other anthropomorphic animals as well as a mysterious and freaky mummy-like character named Mumm-Ra who wants the “Eye of Thundera” which is embedded in the Hero’s sword.

The first go around, we only briefly saw their home planet and knew virtually nothing about their ways, customs and culture. To be honest, this is one of the reasons it never really shined for me. I wanted that backstory to be able to care about the characters.

The second go at it, we (as I said) begin much earlier in the tale. Thus, providing a richer understanding. We even now see Lion-O’s (the Hero) father, the king. But in terms of making them more understood beyond cat-humans, this cartoon series has done something rather interesting. The Thundercats are not exactly the great beings we once thought them to be. It’s their kind (cats) that oppress the other animal-beings...hoarding the resources and enslaving them. They’re the bad guys in this one! Of course, Lion-O does not like this once he discovers the truth and speaks out against his father. Nothing really new here, as this is the same plot as Fritz Lang’s Metropolis from 1927. But it works rather well.

Another reason the original seemed a bit flat to me is that the “villains” (animal-based humans and Mumm-Ra) seemed arbitrary. They just were there, and hated the Thundercats, wanting that sword’s “eye.” Now there might be something I’m forgetting which helped explain them beyond “bad guys.” But even if it did, it had obviously not been memorable. Here, though, it’s different. We see that Mumm-Ra is an ancient evil once thwarted by the Thundercats and that the Eye belongs to him - once again painting the ‘cats to be not so stellar on their morals. I’ve already mentioned their abuse of the other creatures. There’s more to it than all this, fortunately, but I’m not going to bore you with it.

They’re also so much more cat-like than they were the first time, which only makes sense (and had bothered me before as well.) They’ve taken some liberties, such as making Tigra and Lion-O brothers, changing up relationships and such... but hey, it’s a reboot. It’s not supposed to be exactly the same. So far the changes are welcomed. The character design is such that they’re easily recognizable as their 80’s counterparts but they’re more sleek and tweaked just enough to be “new.”  Oh - they also gave the Thundercats - get this - THUNDER & lightning to use!  Cool.



Snarf 2011



80's Snarf



They even managed to keep the most annoying character, Snarf (annoying in voice [always saying 'Snarf Snarf'] and intrusiveness), and tone him down to something not so damned irritating.  (Reboot Snarf doesn't talk [as of yet that I've seen] beyond a version of his trademark 'snarf' but it doesn't sound the same.  The difference, for instance, between a cat's actual meow and our saying "meow.")

And so, because this version cares much more deeply about the story it would seem [even to the point of trying to make sense of one of the more ridiculous bits in the original: The Ro-Bear Berbils [cyborg bears with tufts of fur from their metal] by having a glimpse of them as a relic from a time of technology now thought to be mere myth, proven wrong when Mumm-Ra awakes and joins forces with the others who have been developing this mythical weaponry ever since...] ANYWAY, I’m liking it very much - mostly due to the bonus of actual storytelling this time!

Oh Simple Thing...

Yesterday I began the day by finishing up the latest illustration for Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between.  Quite pleased with it!  Turned out better than I imagined.  Then I met up with Buttercup.  We headed to one of my favorite haunts, the Dixie Kitchen in Evanston, Illinois.  Fortunately we'd been able to order off the brunch menu.  Any time that I am able to catch their brunch, there is but one choice for me...Eggs Sardou.  Imagine Eggs Florentine but with the addition of fried green tomatoes, artichokes in the Hollandaise sauce atop cornbread versions of English  Muffins.  Not to be missed!  Buttercup's first brunch at the Dixie Kitchen.  She's a fan.

Afterward, we saw Winnie-the-Pooh.  Buttercup had not yet seen it.  She loved it, but of course.  And I'm happy to report it loses none of its magic the second viewing.

Buttercup wanted to get coffee, and at first we thought of going to Metropolis coffee house in our neck of the woods...but then I remembered we wouldn't have to go that far.  I used my smartphone to lead us (literally, with a moving dot on a map as we walked) to Kafein, a snazzy little coffee house in Evanston.

I had the White Chocolate Mocha, but that's not really important.

What you are about to see (and read) is 100% true, I swear in the name of the creator of the eternal boy of the Neverland.  On the tables, Kafein has 'Trivial Pursuit' cards.  Thought I: Wouldn't it be cool [to quote my nephew] if the first card I picked had a question about Peter Pan or Barrie?  I present to you the first card I picked out:

None shall ever convince me that Great Spirit doesn't pull a few strings in theory.

P.S. - It might be 17 pictures after all.  ;) 

What is "You Better BELIEVE It!," Alex?

Go figure.

So soon after the last one, a character from Barrie is mentioned on the best trivia show ever once again!
My my MY my MY!

Granted, it's referring to the Disney incarnation this time, but for certain the "question" to the $200 "answer" on Jeopardy! is "Who is Tinker Bell?"  I mean, what ELSE would be first in a categoty of 'TINKER,' right?

Also interesting to note, right next to it there'd been a category "EVER"s and one might think a mention of the N'ever'LAND might be inculded.  No, though.  But this entire category had been played before they ever touched on 'TINKER.'

Seriously, folks, WHO *IS* the Barrie & Pan fan on the Jeopardy! team?  My friend Buttercup who'd been watching and playing along with me agrees that there's got to be someone!

Hollywood is Bad Bandit!

I can't believe I "have to" complain about a remake again.  This one's "idea"  leaves me even more embittered.  They’re remaking the fantastic (both in the senses of story content and quality) Terry Gilliam classic

Time Bandits

Really?

This poor man can’t ever catch a break on getting a NEW film made (he always runs into some sort of snag, there's more about that in one of the posts somewhere here) and now they’re going to re-do one of his best?

What’s more, they’re going to make it more “kid-accessible.” Um, suuuure. I had always considered it a kid movie anyway. Do they really think it’s too intense for younger viewers? I had been 10 when it came out. And yes, I saw it in the theater. And yes, I loved it then (and now [yes, I have seen it recently.]) To say it needs to be more kid-friendly is an insult to Gilliam, storytelling and children.

Unlike some other 80’s F/X, I don’t think this movie needs any help. It even holds up today.

Oh, Hollywood. SO many books and plays and original ideas out there and you still insist on destroying the integrity of a classic.

If only the Evil Genius could point a finger at them.

And does ANYONE want THE MAP to be REMADE?

*SIGH*

Incidentally, I’ve learned that Banky, Clara, Buttercup and Josiecat haven’t seen Time Bandits. Clara quote :
Time traveling midgets!?!?? I’m IN.

Correction:  Buttercup has seen it.  I showed it to her when we had our Gilliam kick.

I'd Been Hoodwinked!

The other night when Bart and I gathered at Banky’s place for our weekly visit with him, Clara, Buttercup & Josiecat, I discovered once again that the “don’t judge by how it appears” rule applies.

Josiecat brought us a movie to watch. I knew of it. And I had dismissed it as something that I need not see. You know how it goes... it just looked like the type of stuff cranked out with all flash and no substance. Well, obviously the presentational packaging (trailer/ads) didn’t do it justice. To my surprise, Hoodwinked is a gem!

A spin on the well-known tale of Little Red Riding Hood, it had been a welcome change from the recent semi-letdown of Red Riding Hood. There’s a LOT packed into Hoodwinked. And all of it is delightful.

It actually begins with the old adage of not judging a book by its cover, opening up a storybook as it does so. We’re then told that there is more than one side to every story, also very true. We start the tale this time around with Red entering Grandma’s house and encountering the Wolf dressed as Grandma. It’s obvious that Red is not fooled, but plays along in the sense of buying time. Shortly after, Granny bursts out of the closet and then, well, the real fun begins.

Grandma’s house is now a crime scene - yellow “Caution Do Not Cross” strips, cop cars and everything. Each ‘character’ is questioned by the police (the chief is a bear) and gives their side of the story. As such, we are then treated to skipping backward in time to when their “real” story started. For instance, we now see Red leaving her place, getting on her bike and traveling to Granny’s. Along the way we notice various things we do not quite understand, such as the woodcutter looking awfully dejected and follow Red’s soon to be misadventures all the way up until she opens the door to Grandma’s house. Also for instance, in her version, the Wolf is quite intrusive and frightens her with an attack and she runs from him.

Well, then comes the Wolf’s side of the story. His over-inquisitiveness about the contents of Red’s basket and her destination? Oh, he’s really a reporter, you see, trying to crack the case of who has been stealing all the recipes for Goodies across the forest and putting everyone out of business. (Granny’s recipes [the best Goodies of all] are highly prized by whoever the bandit happens to be.) We’re then treated to the Wolf's misadventures. Thus, we now see what really happened in some parts. Like that ‘lunge attack and growl’ upon Red? His squirrel helper’s shenanigans crunches his tail and he’s really crying out and moving in pain. (Red saw it otherwise!)

It goes on... retelling each ‘day’ of each character and we therefore learn the truth about how things really played out. We find out why the woodcutter looked despondent. We find out why Granny had been tied up in the closet (which the Wolf swears had already been the case when he arrived - and my my my is it hilarious how it really goes down.)  [I tend to applaud this type of interlocking 'point of view' story in the first place.  The Simpsons also has a wonderful version of it.]

But it doesn’t stop there. Nope. The telling of the truth by each character only takes up a portion of the movie. From then on, it’s an action adventure as the characters race to find and capture the infamous bandit. And it never loses sight of that crafty wit and great story.

All of it is peppered with humor of the slapstick and pun varieties. And all of it is wonderfully entertaining. I must say the writing is ingenious. Funny lines coupled with tightly knit and unexpected ideas. I suppose one would compare it to the Shrek franchise - a la twisting the land of fairy tale with anachronistic and our-worldly themes. The similarity is there, yes, but the focus is quite different. Hoodwinked stands on its own, reminding me of the old Rocky & Bullwinkle shorts Fractured Fairy Tales. While Shrek is wonderful, it’s does not have the same drive and layers of Hoodwinked.

It has terrific vocal talent, too. Among others you’ll find Anne Hathaway, Patrick Warburton, David Ogden Stiers and Glenn Close.

I enjoyed this one immensely. Thank you, Josiecat, for showing it to us. I’m so very glad that I’d been wrong.

And I must say the title, although ‘cutesy’ is truly apt. The characters are not only hoodwinked, but it’s taking a wink at the story of Hood.

It’s really too bad that this movie, among a slew of other sub-par and quick-buck animated features, got lost in the woods.

P.S. - Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil will be out April 29. And yes, the way this one ends, the sequel is warranted and welcomed. Guess who will be going!

Unexpected Visit

Sorry for the unannounced absense.

Fate took some turns, which brought Laughter back to stay with us from last Wednesday night on through Sunday again.  How wonderful to be able to spend a lot more time with him.  Also, he'd then been able to attend one of our 'Thursday Nights' whereupon we always have friends (Banky, Clara, Buttercup and Josiecat & sometimes others) over.  It brings me such joy to have Banky and Laughter interact.  Forgive my child-like saying so, but they're both just so cool on their own, but bring them together and look out - fun!  Josiecat had the pleasure of meeting Laughter for the first time.  And Buttercup got to spend time with him outside of a parking lot at a concert (where they met before.)

Woo-hoo.

Just wanted to point out that this post went up at 11:11.  What a neat "coincidence" considering that the number 11 actually came up many times durning Laughter's visit.  (And yes, partly in reference to Nigel Tufnel.)

Good Spirits Last Night

I hope you all had a great Halloween.
Truth be told, it's my favorite holiday... yet I barely (if ever) do anything special for it.  I'm no longer the "wild party" type, so going to a spooky bash isn't really my thing.  I'm no longer Trick-or-Treat'ing, so I don't make rounds that way.  And I am often too lazy to decorate (but I do put some stuff out.)  Although I love the concept, I'm not all that into dressing up.  But otherwise, I find it the most intriguing and delightful.   (Except for the giant spider decorations on my block! - But that's rather the point, isn't it?)

However, yesterday I had a perfect Halloween!

This might sound pathetic to some, and it may be, but I rather enjoyed lounging around the house watching the many TV shows about the paranormal and hauntings plaguing the airwaves on account of the date.  Much to my chagrin, I had to keep switching around since I'd seen most of them before.  My fault for watching them whenever I can, I suppose.

Late in the afternoon, Bart left to go accompany his pseudo-cousin's kids on their Trick-or-Treat'ing.  Rather young kids - and they already had a gaggle of adults hovering around them, so I stayed home and kept watching spooky stuff.

Then, at dark, I decided I couldn't just sit around with no candy!  (We don't get Trick-or-Treat'ers since we're a building and not a house so there hadn't been any around.)  Thus, knowing myself to be deplorable, I paused the TiVo just as the skeptic husband would have his paranormal experience and ventured out anyway for something to snack on while watching.

I'm not out through the gate and I get a text message from Buttercup... who wants to know if she can come over.  Hosah!  I tell her I'll be right back (and it will take her a bit to travel to my place anyway.)  While on my way to the corner drug/convenience store to obtain my candy, I decide to cross the street (safely of course) at a place where one is not supposed to do so... why?  Because down the sidewalk going the proper way I see a tall, dark humanoid shape.  Looming.  Oooooo!  Not that I had any real reason to be scared but it did seem a little eerie.  Just standing there.  All dark, like a shadow person.  Not moving.  And here I just eariler had been watching a 'true' story of shadow people in a home!  It had been a real person and not a decoration, I'm sure... so I relished in the spooky nature, glad to have a 'fright' in fun and decided on an assortment bag of treats at the store.

Buttercup arrived and we talked for a while... and then Bart came back home.  Buttercup brought some spirits with her so we partook...and put on It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown.  I had already caught it randomly the other night on TV (turned it on and voila! special treat) but Bart hadn't seen it yet this year... and Buttercup hadn't in many, too many, years.  Yes, I laughed at it all over again, as Peanuts is a favorite of mine.

Then we watched my favorite 'scary movie' - The Changeling.  I've been trying to convince Buttercup to watch it for many months now... but it's never happened either due to scheduling or the fact that she had been a little too scared to watch.  She actually loves scary movies, but, knowing that I revel in watching hauntings (as I did all day) and barely (if ever) get spooked by them and yet I find this one scary... well, she hadn't been so sure she wanted to see it.  (She's also been freaked by other movies that I didn't find frightful at all.)  But what better night than Halloween?  Once again, I found myself tensing up and ready to cry at a certain point, as always, but tears never come.  I just find it SO unnerving.  Other than that, though, I think I've seen it so many times that the paralyzing effect no longer applies.  Darn.  Buttercup truly liked it, though, in the sense of yeah...she got totally creeped out.

As an added bonus... I found myself scribbling down ideas for the novel I'm hammering out.  Yep!  Inspired by one of my favorite films.  No... not in the sense of stealing from it.  It's just that several of the scenes and/or subject matter sprung up ideas in my mind that I could find useful in other ways.  That spark I spoke of the other day turns out to be viable... and it looks as if I have something I can work with after all.  I still need the motivation from the one character... but then, I might start writing anyway without knowing that wherefore yet.  I'm sure he'll tell me as I go.

And so... that, to me, constitutes a great Halloween!

Don't RUN it That WAY

I admit that I am a fan of Project Runway. Yes, it’s true. Here’s how it happened.

A friend of a friend (I honestly don’t remember which friend and that extended friend I had never seen before and have never seen since, just by circumstance) had been visiting (along with first friend) and she said, “Hey! Project Runway is on... can we put it on?” Begrudgingly, we allowed it to happen. It just seemed like one more idiotic reality show and I had wondered who on earth would ever watch such a thing. Well, about a third of the way into it, I wondered: I’m not watching this WHY? And we have ever since (for about 4 or 5 seasons.) In fact, Banky, Clara, Buttercup and Josiecat come over every Thursday to watch (as well as It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, and at off-seasons it’s just “movie night.”) I’m not even into fashion. Really. Just look at my drawing of myself, that will show you. Outside of the program, I don’t give a damn. But in the context of the show I find myself critiquing with the rest of them. There's something about seeing the creative process and its execution.  I also have to say that if it were not for Heidi Klum and Tim Gunn I don’t think I’d be watching. Their personalities and presence are a good chunk of what makes the show.


Okay, now that I have that disclaimer out of the way, I want to express a complaint about the advertisement editors.

First, another explanation. Yes, I am well aware that “marketing” is part of the deal.  For instance, at the glimpse of next week’s show they’ll have a particularly nasty (and humorous) comment by a judge and then show the designer’s reaction. However, that “the” is erroneous. It won’t actually be the designer the comment had been directed to, possibly not even a comment that had been meant for the runway critique. In other words, they arrange the facts so as to be enticing.  I’m fine with that... it’s actually kind of fun to see how it really “goes down.”

But last week they went too far. Way out of line. All season long during the commercials they have been hyping that someone is accused of cheating. We’re now at the tail end of the season and it finally just occurred. No, that’s not the complaint. For the week leading up to the show, we hear (and see) Tim Gunn saying “You will not be returning to the show.” GASP! What intrigue!  What scandal!  Naturally, we sat on the edge of our seat to see who had been ejected for their dishonest practice.  Well, here’s what really happened. Tim Gunn informed a designer that his model had an emergency and she “will not be returning to the show.” The word “You” did not begin that sentence. Thus, they didn’t just creatively adjust what’s there, they purposely manipulated and altered the facts and sound bites of what had happened! (For the record, the accusation of cheating fizzled away into a non-issue.)

Why would they be so deceitful? I seriously doubt that someone who does not watch Project Runway would be swayed into doing so by that “scandal” they had you believe. If anything it would make them roll their eyes at such petty drama and not want to watch ever. So why re-edit it for the regular fans so that Tim Gunn is misquoted? He should sue for misrepresentation if you ask me.

Shame on them.

A Few Things...

So that new The Thing movie?  That's the thing.  It's also (and still) called The Thing.  They're not sure what else to call it.  In that article I quoted in the last post Marc Abraham talks about the difficulty in naming the movie.  Call it The Thing Begins and someone will balk that it began with John Carpenter and how dare they call it as such.  The Thing Prequel?  Nah.  So, right now it's just called The Thing.  Again.  Although keeping that the title is somehow appealing, it smacks too much of a remake.  I have a suggestion.  After jokingly going for the obvious Another Thing, I realized a very viable solution.  Since the movie Carpenter used as a springboard had been The Thing from Another World, why not call this one: From Another World.  Yes, I realize the order isn't right to continue from/as the original title (meaning that the new film is a prequel) but it does work in the sense that the new film will be more so about the thing that came here a la the crashed ship and removing the lifeform inside only to have the same type of chaos ensue which, as we know, will lead directly into the Carpenter film.  So how about it?  From Another World.   Any takers?

Bart, Buttercup (who has not seen it) and I are going to watch it tomorrow night.  She's excited.  I am, too, since it's been a great while for me since I last saw it.

Meanwhile, I'm still tossing around ideas and researching for the new novel.  I now have all the character names.  Okay, okay, that's a lie.  I have all the main character names.  To be honest, I'm not exactly sure the supporting characters are going to have names.  I'll have to see if I can get away with it, but right now I'm thinking it could work even better to just have them observed by the principle players.  It seems as if what those around them are called would be of little interest to them.  So, if the principles don't know their names, why should we?  I'll see how it plays out and works best, of course.

Anyway, with the characters named, their personalities are starting to come through and they've started, just started, to help me understand their story.  I'll keep figuring, listening and poking up some research to find out what their spiritual (ha!) journey turns out to be.  Hmm.  That just gave me an idea.

A Brunch of Fun

Ever read a book, love it, have so much to say about it, have some questions and wish you could sit down with the author to chat about it? Well, my friend Buttercup did - and also had the chance to play it out as such over brunch. Okay, granted, the author is me, so it's not all that exciting.

But to me it is. I mean, who doesn't want to hear that their work is appreciated, mulled over and evoked genuine feelings? Not only those aspects, but I really love experiencing my books vicariously through someone else. (See this post.)

And so, last Saturday Buttercup and I met at the Heartland Café (which is near to her) and sat down to brunch (as the jacket cover of the flap of the hardcover of Peter Pan's NeverWorld will tell you I love to do) and discussed What If It's a Trick Question? We had a lovely time and each of us were able to gain new insights into the tale. She marveled at how it really, as she said, just keeps unfolding. I told her of the sequel (which I hadn't originally planned on writing) as well as its "companion" books that I'll probably be doing as well. She knew of the companion books already, actually. But I’d been eager to tell her of the next book for quite some time but naturally I had to wait until she finished.

All in all, I really enjoy answering questions and hearing about how my work has affected others. Should time and such permit, I’d love to be able to offer a “Brunch with the Author” by way of, who knows, a contest or something?

T.S. Eliot Applies Here, Too...

The Naming of Cats - T.S. Eliot

I’m still nomenclature hunting.

I’ve got two of the main characters’ names and one for the minor-ish guy. But the main character that I already love the most... well, the jury is still out.

It’s not as if I’m entirely fussy. Okay, truthfully, I am fussy. Quite. But I mean, hey, shouldn’t I be? First of all, I need to be able to “work” with it and see it on the page – a lot. Second (and more importantly) character names can make all the difference. Would the world love Pansy O’Hara just as well? Or Sniffy (the original proposed name of Snoopy)? Or Alexander Darling leaving with Peter Pan? Possibly, sure, as it could just be a matter of what we’re used to... nevertheless, there’s no question of a name’s “power.” It has to ring true or “sound right.”

Part of the fussiness can be chalked up to just not liking them. But, of course, it’s by taste. One name on my list of potentials Bart and members of his family like a lot, saying it sounds upper crust. Me? I think it sounds like a hick. This character is neither of those. (If you’re wondering why it had been on my list then, it’s because it’s a bit unique, which, I think, is why they like it.) Buttercup has had a few suggestions [and doesn’t like the name they do either], but essentially naysays herself shortly after and those that she does like, I have issues. Perhaps they remind me of someone I’d rather not think about, or it’s too similar to a name I’ve used before or has a heavy association otherwise.

Then there’s the fact that I’m working within a restriction. For this book, the name has to be something from the late 1800’s. Subset factors are involved, too. I’m hoping for a polysyllabic name (it just feels right for the character) as well as it must actually sound archaic, or at least vaguely uncommon by today's standards. Plus, it needs to be appropriate for his character – not just personality, but his circumstances and situation in life.

All of these elements add up to a tricky ordeal. Needless to say, I’ve gone through quite a number of names on my list (circa 15). And you know what? Eventually the supply of names that fit the criteria are exhausted and one of them needs to be selected. Sure, I could just make one up, but that opens up a whole new set of issues (such as it can’t sound too outlandish or forced.)

Eventually a name will stick (actually there’s a place-holder name in my notes, but despite my gravitating toward it, that moniker sounds like it’s trying too hard to fit the bill) and I’ll be that much further along.

But in the end, the character has to approve. I mean, really, he would know what his name is, wouldn’t he? For me it’s usually the case that a character is more likely to reject a name... and thus makes me guess what s/he is called.  I’ve been “yelled” at by one for spelling his name wrong. So sooner or later they’re vocal about it... I just have to find the right one to start.

Fortunately I just might have stumbled across it. Who am I kidding?  I probably saw it many times and am just now starting to “cotton” to it. [Refer to remark about exhausting the supply.]

I’ll see what the peanut gallery thinks of it, too. But, yes, I  have the final decision.

(Until the character speaks up!)

Ever realize this much goes into the naming of characters?

Next on the Agenda

Well, as the revisions on Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between draw to a close (I just have a few tidbits/scenes to plunk in here and there) I am already thinking about what I will work on next.  But, that's to be expected, write?  It won't be a story about the boy who never grew up since I've had enough of him for now.  But I can and shall always return to him.

I'm fortunate to not have a lack of  ideas that I've been kicking around, and I thought for a while there that I'd tackle the sequel to What If It's a Trick Question?  But the truth is I'm just not "feeling" it yet. 

I'm now leaning toward a particular story that's been scratching at my proverbial door for quite some time .  I keep "hearing" about it, although not from any particular character.  It should be a lot of fun to write.  It's one of two 'ghost stories' I've had my "eye on" and it's the non-scary of the two.  I don't want to reveal the crux of it, but suffice to say that it's not a haunting in the traditional sense.  I imagine it to be peppered with humor (but that's not the difference/plot point either.)

There's sort of a problem, though.  I've got the premise, but the ultimate goal(s) of the characters has not yet been revealed to me.  So there's this cool idea floating around, but no end or purpose in sight.  Minor goals, yes.  Major driving plot, no.  However, I'm confident that there is someone fictional ready to spill his or her beans any time now.  Perhaps if I start defining the characters more clearly the overall scope will arise.

I do know the "nature" of one of the characters, but he's not the protagonist.  I might have a name for him... not that I love it nor hate it, but I wrote it down just to be sure.  I used the marvelous internet to check and see if it had been as original as I thought, but alas, it actually is a last name.  And here I imagined I'd created something altogether unheard of - how silly of me.  I don't remember ever hearing the name/word before, but I guess that subconscious is a powerful thing, eh?  Thus, I might not use it.  No, not because it isn't wholly original, but for the simple reason that I am not in love with it.  It came to me two days ago and I haven't "heard " from nor had any great revelations or insights about him other than what I already know, so I'm thinking maybe it's not his name after all.  But it's got to be close, for it doesn't quite feel wrong.

Well, I'll know soon enough... and who's to say?  Right now Buttercup is still reading What If It's a Trick Question?  Life has interfered several times now.  But she's almost done!  Perhaps her enthusiasm when she does finish will ignite the further adventures of those characters after all.  [And then with my luck, the 'ghost story' characters will haunt me to death as I'm working on the sequel.]