Title... Title 2

I'd just been browsing through Netflix. On the page (I did not select it) The Pink Panther 2 showed up.

Just a quick rant. The Pink Panther 2. Seriously? Not only is it an atrocity to have someone else besides the iconic and inimitable Peter Sellers play Inspector Clouseau on screen (regardless of the actor and/or talent in the role*), they have the gall to simply tack on a 2? The original (or, no, rather the real series of films) had fun titles: Return of the Pink Panther... Revenge of the Pink Panther... Not that I think they should have used one of those, but how about ANYTHING besides a lame 2? (Not to mention letting the series alone in the first place.)

Just the other day Josiecat told me she remembers a movie called Another Cinderella Story and complained at the lack of creativity and effort.

I do long for the days when sequential story titles were creative. Not that it doesn't happen now, but it's a rare flick that comes along that isn't just 2. Often they have subtitles. Which begs the question why it needs the 2.

Okay, rant over.

*Granted, Alan Arkin and Roger Moore also played Clouseau, But there's a stipulation for each. Arkin's version hadn't been in the "series" with Pink Panther in the title and didn't feature the same characters. Moore had a cameo with the character having undergone plastic surgery. Certainly these aren't part of the Pink Pantheon of Clouseau and no offense, but who remembers them? They're certainly not in the best-loved and cherished list.

Racking Up the Spice of Paprika

Well, I’ve now both seen and read Paprika. With no offense meant to author Yasutaka Tsutsui, I think I liked the movie better. That is not to say I didn’t enjoy the book. I did. Very much so. Knowing, however, that Tsutsui had been pleased with the movie makes me feel less guilty. More on that in a bit.

Let me present a paradox: The novel and the film are the same, but altogether different.

It’s as if they are telling the same story two different ways. I had expected the book to be unlike the movie (or vice-versa), but I didn’t realize so much of it had been changed in the adaptation. To be clear, the basic idea of each is identical. Computers are being used as a form of psychiatric treatment by way of the DC Mini, a device that allows therapists to access (that is to say record and enter) patients’ dreams. The device is stolen and used to drive some people insane (by projecting the dreams of a schizophrenic onto their pscyhe) and ultimately unforeseen-ly merging dreams and reality. It’s up to those who created the device to ascertain who pilfered and abused them and then set things right. That’s the nutshell. How that concept plays out, though, turns out to be not the same at all.

The main difference, as I see it, comes in that the film version of Paprika presents itself as a mystery. The characters don’t know who is behind the theft and are thrown on some red herrings (albeit related to the actual misdeeds) along the way. In the book, it’s easy to see 'whodunit.' No, it’s not because I knew so from the film. The novel flat out states who is responsible. And the characters guess immediately, too. I have to say I missed not knowing what in the hell is going on along with the characters.

Another big difference is that part of the central focus of the movie is really only a bit scene in the book. In the film, it’s amplified to a delightfully sickening proportion and keeps re-occurring (as per the driving force of the plot.) The “scene” is the Parade. I kept waiting for it to show up. I’d gotten nearly all the way through the book and it didn’t even have a line of it. Then, finally, a parade is mentioned, but it’s not at all like the movie. And it has no bearing on the plot in the book, other than being one of the manifestations of dreams combining with the real world. Rather curious, since it factors into the very fabric of the film. (I'd mentioned to others such as Josiecat and Buttercup who love the movie along with me and they, too, couldn't fathom how the Parade could not be in the book.)

I found that many, many characters and events are taken out for the movie. In my other post I had said that the background and traits of a character in the book belonged to someone entirely else in the movie. I suspected, however, that the movie’s guy would show up in the book, as the plot sort of dictates that he must. (He’s an investigating policeman.) Well, I’m happy that I’d been right. Konakawa did show up in the book and does in fact play a very important role. In the movie, though, he’d been combined with the other guy for the purpose of simplification. I’d suspected that. And yes, this pared down combo works quite well.

Yet another character changes nearly completely. In the film Inui is the Chairman and confined to a power-chair. In the book his personality is the same but he's not the biggest cheese nor is he crippled. (Yes, the change is justified as per the movie's particular plotline.)

I would sigh with relief each time a part of the movie appeared in the novel. Like the creepy 32-foot Japanese doll. Yup, it’s in both of them. Other specific parts of the book are in the movie, too. Whether it be the state/condition of a character’s room, Paprika’s outfit, a particular pose or a fact about the way the DC Mini devices are utilized, it had been a joy to see how small bits of the book made its way into the film.

Yet so much of the movie is not in the book. And vice-versa. The wonderful visual imagery of the film, especially the crazed dream sequences like the rippling hallway, Paprika floating around on a cloud, the roots of a tree acting as tentacles – none of these are described in the book. Instead it treats us to a whole host of other bizarre dream sequences and odd manifestations. In a way, it had been a joy. More outlandish places where Paprika and friends roam! Plus the book gives a lot more backstory (but of course) as well as a different driving force of the scientists being up for the Nobel Prize.

In the post about finding and starting to read the book I wrote: A place that exists via the internet and dreams, so to speak, in the film turns out to be a real place (in what we deem reality) in the book. Well, that never changes…not really. When I got to the end of the book, I saw where filmmaker Satoshi Kon obtained the notion to make the alteration…and thus another “satisfying connection” between the two arose. Actually, that happened quite bit - a sort of "A-ha! connection" creatively reconfigured from an event or idea from the book.

What really threw me for a loop, however, is that my two absolute favorite parts of the movie do not appear in the book. Well, again, not exactly.

At the very beginning of the movie, Paprika is shown moving in, through and about pictures. In a dream-like way, she uses billboards, video screens and such to ‘travel’ around the city. She can also manipulate reality to an extent. Absorbing herself into paintings and the like occurs throughout the movie. Nope, it's not in the book. However, seeing where this idea came from is very easy. In the novel, the therapists can become “immersed” into the dream they are watching on-screen and the concept of those monitoring the dream talking to those dreaming via a billboard depiction does happen in the book. And then, during all the turmoil of the climax, someone does indeed stick arms into a TV screen and pull someone else out. So again, it’s not exactly alien to the book. But using it as a constant, as an actual entering and a mode of travel happens only in the film.

My absolute favorite part in the movie is... well, I don’t want to spoil it for you. Suffice to say it throws you for a loop when watched and later allows a very great (but simple) line. It’s just wonderful. And… it’s not in the book. If it is at all, it’s merely a suggestion of a hint of whisper misheard.

So, all in all, both are very enjoyable. But I prefer the tweaks of the movie. And I am not alone. For in the extra content on the disc, author Tsutsui says of the very part of the movie that had been my favorite: It’s not in the novel, but I thought it a great idea and I immediately wished I had put it in my book. The thing is it would have been overly complex in print. I would have been too afraid it could confuse my readers. It’s something that really takes advantage of the cinematic format. He may be right about it not working in print, I’m not sure. I’m just glad that the bit is well-loved by him, too.

I’d watched the extra/documentary content on the disc when I first saw the movie years ago, and I retained some of what had been there. For instance, I knew the author had liked the movie. I just didn’t recall specifics. So as I read the novel, seeing the resemblance and discord merging like the dreams and reality of the movie, I felt better about being confused, upset or disenchanted at having liked the movie a wee bit better.

What I (re)learned from re-watching all of them, however, is that the goal had never been to be exactly faithful to the book. Yasutaka Tsutsui said: Regurgitating the novel is boring. Also: I like it. The story is very simplified in the movie. I think it makes the story more forceful… I felt the core concepts of my story were very solid so I wasn’t worried about how loosely it was adapted…Because he left his imagination run wild, it became a visually stunning film.

Ah, okay. So the author wanted to see “another take” on his own story. Well, that is indeed what he received. As he said, the core remains. When thinking of both the book and the movie as story only, the tracks align pretty well. But the train cars running on them and their schedules are almost all from another station.

The reasons behind me being attracted to and so partiuclarly moved or inspired by this story, however, resonate much better in the movie. And a great deal has to do with what’s revealed in that cherished part. The one that Yasutaka Tsutsui had wished he’d put in the book.

So we’re left with two versions of the same story. Would my opinion have been different if I’d read the book first? I guess I’ll never know. Either way, I’m thrilled to have entered the fantasy realm of the tale of Paprika. Twice - like one in reality and one in a dream.

Worth Noting (Again)

For as many times as this happens, it's a wonder it still delights and surprises me. Actually, it's truly something special and quite a magical experience, so perhaps it's no wonder at all that so splendid an occurrence continually astounds me. What am I talking about? Let me explain.

Before I do so, however, I'm happy to say that Peter Pan's plan of vengeful mischief is underway... and the characters have been more than helpful in providing the sundry details.

Which brings me to my convoluted statements above. I'd just been composing more of this book and came to another chapter's end. However, parts of it are missing. (As I mentioned in another post, I'd skipped a few chunks here and there in order to write the bits I'd a current passion to see on the page.) Since the chapter had not technically been done, then, I decided to go back and fill in the gap. First, though, I needed to refer back to Barrie, taking another peek at some facts in Peter and Wendy. Once I had what I needed, I returned to my novel. As I did so, sure enough, I'd "heard" from my fictional friends who let me know what to put into the story. One of the bits of advice in particular made me quite pleased. It just seemed like a great idea. Not only did it tie in bits of Barrie, but also a snippet from Peter Pan's NeverWorld as well. So I typed out a note of what the fairy added. But guess what. I'd already had that very idea in the notes that acted for a placeholder for the missing scene!

It's moments like these that shine when writing. It truly seems as if some other realm is indeed being accessed. Perhaps there is "something else" going on... or else I am just that scatter-brained. ;) Thank goodness for the notes, eh?

Either way, it never ceases to be magical. And it's a great reassurance that I probably do indeed "have it right."

Okay... back to writing...

Heck YES!

A while back I had an idea for a TV show... and now it's being done.
The thing is, I'd been told by many that it's a bad idea.
Are you ready for Napoleon Dynamite: The Series?

Ready or not, it's coming. And it's a cartoon.
The thought of it being animated crossed my mind, but truthfully I had wanted it as live action. Of course, live action is not entirely feasible and animation makes a great deal more sense. Fortunately, most (if not all) of the original actors will be reprising their roles.

Why did I think a Napoleon Dynamite show to be a good idea? Simply because I wanted to know more about the characters. Specifically the minor ones, like Trisha and her parents. Episodes of this wacky town would allow for expansion of all facets of it. I'm hoping the creators see the potential to develop their other oddballs, too.

When the ads for the movie aired, I had asked, "WHO on EARTH would ever go SEE that?" I'll be honest. It looked stupid. But then there'd been the great fan base that sprang up for it. Still, I'm not always a fan of what's popular, so I still had decided I need not bother. However, my friend Lemonie and best friend Laughter asked me if I'd seen it. They sang its praises. I thought perhaps I'd just been missing something, that whatever had been great about the movie didn't show through in the ads. Fortunately, this had just been about the time of the re-release with the added ending. So Bart and I went to see it. I'm happy to say I'd been grossly wrong. We adored the movie. I loved everything about it. From its subtle humor to its compelling characters and quirky lines. I've now seen it quite a few times. And when I show it to people who have not seen it, I warn them and apologize in advance. Of/for what? The fact that it makes me laugh. A lot. That they'll be wondering what's so damn funny when nothing funny seems to be happening. But I can't help it. For instance, when Napoleon is standing there waiting for the bus. There's just something hysterical about his very presence there. Hats off to Jon Heder for that. Maybe it's partially due to the fact that I can generally identify with Napoleon. I'm not that strange, no. But I certainly hear my own drum like him.

And so, I found myself wanting more. But a sequel just wouldn't work, that's for sure. Hence, my thinking a TV show would be good.

I, for one, am very glad they're doing it. It's got my vote.

Let's hope it's SWEET.

JaPAN's Got the Neverland

I discovered this not so long ago.

Universal Studios theme park in Japan has an attraction/show based on Peter Pan.

It's called

Peter Pan's Neverland

I bet it's a lot of fun.
I can just imagine the splendor of the starry sky featured in Disney's ride of Pirates of the Caribbean in a setting of the Neverland with Pan flying all about. It's only 25 minutes long, so it's not like a re-do of the play. But that's just enough time for a grand battle with Hook.

What I find curious, though, is that if this image from the website is to be believed, it doesn't look anything like the Universal movie. (Universal Stuidos partnered with both Columbia Pictures and Revolution Studios for the only film version of Peter Pan.) Perhaps I'm wrong, but aren't the attractions meant to "replicate" the movies on which they're based? It's possible that since it's a joint venture now appearing at just one studio they had to make changes. Or maybe this is just a promotional piece made before the fact, so to speak. (At least it the hook is on the correct hand and Pan's in leaves!)


Meanwhile, Peter Pan is still bringing me tidbits that I need to fill in that "adventure" he's gotten himself involved with...or, to be more accurate, stirs up himself. So hooray for that. It uses a few things from elsewhere in the Betwixt-and-Between story, too, and that's always good. I'll keep listening to him and writing it down...

Did He Even Know I'd Been Gone?

Truth is I've been ignorning Peter Pan for the past week or so... since I've gone in for another round of submission of Midnight Chaser.

Fortunately, though, the boy hasn't held it against me. Perhaps his splotchty memory didn't even register I'd been gone. That section I said I'd be skipping for now...? He's given me some of the very details I needed as soon as came back to the story and re-acclimated myself to what I had on the page.

Looks like I'll be skipping back to it. And yes, I am rather pleased with what he told me of his "mischievous plan."

In Good Company...

What do

Stephen King

Anne Frank

William Faulkner

and

Margaret Mitchell

have in common?
(Besides being an author.)

Their work has been rejected numerous times, of course…
often with nasty remarks.

This is simultaneously disheartening, encouraging, hilarious and sad. Take a gander at what’s been said of many classics and/or their writers.

Rejections of 30 Famous Writers

I already knew such "atrocities" occurred often, but it's good to remember during the process of submitting my work (as I am now.)