Comparison: 'Pokémon Detective Pikachu' vs. 'The Haunting in Connecticut'

Adaptation

In the case of The Haunting in Connecticut, the so-called adaptation occurs with that fantastically marketable 'based on a true story' title which appears right at the start of the film. This title is so-often whipped out by many horror film producers to help yank audiences by the collars and get them all hot and bothered. And it is rarely used in a beneficial way, and never as some sort of plot device... but, here, with this 'true' horror story, it feels rather fitting. Because, with the film's opening scene, which shows us a mother being interviewed on camera in order to tell her family's haunted story (which we witness thereafter), you immediately get the sense that a part of this is 'their' story... and therefore, by no means, is it entirely 'true.' It is their (the family's) interpretation of what happened—or rather, an adaptation of what she says happened. It is very layered, and a great conceit for interpretation through the mode of film adaptation— where things can get lost and twisted.

In terms of the notion of adaptation with Detective Pikachu, what we get is a much more complex interpretation at play—at least in terms of 'choices made.' This is, after all, a filmic adaptation of a card game/ video game/ TV show world. And with such diverse source material, the team behind this film had to go right ahead and work with what has already been 'built-in' with these sources... meaning, presumably, whatever was missing within this pre-made-world of the Pokémon universe had to be created for the plot of this particular film to work. This form of 'adaptation' has resulted in a fantastically unique single arc for this title (rather than say the Transformers adaptations, which are built into each other like a multistoried building). There are lots of details one could drone on about, but the peak, which is essentially the main narrative device of this particular film and its core form of 'adaptation', works best: how is it that Pikachu can talk with the young wannabe detective Tim Goodman?

Thanks to this self-contained enigma, Detective Pikachu manages to dodge that moment where an audience is expected to 'bare with,' whilst they (the producers, writers, film execs) work out the kinks for a never-ending set up of a franchise and its adaptation.

Puzzle Plots

The mystery of Detective Pikachu is actually a delight. Though it feels like a long haul story—the type that just keeps unfolding and refolding, the sort that really dodges its main puzzle all the time by creating other ones... it is actually the sort of runaround approach that a viewer can't help but really relish, especially with the majority of the runtime is being eaten up by the evil master plan organised by British villain Howard Clifford (Bill Nighy). It is a fun puzzling plot, but also a simple three-act structure—the type that satisfies a viewer by not upsetting anything too much. It's like a three-course meal: you get your starter (arrive at the city), your main slog course (the hunt for the truth), and an enjoyable and manageable desert (the showdown and final reveal).

On the other hand—oh boy. When it comes to puzzles I have a lot of gripes with The Haunting in Connecticut. Of course, one has to acknowledge that there is a lot of information within this film's double arc of the past and present that needs to be transferred to the viewer. It features a very detailed 'flashback' element that plays out in parallel with nearly every scare of the film, and with so many characters and lives at stake, one can't help but get lost with the idea of who is who to whom and what is what to what plotline (ie who is haunting or terrorising who in each layer). But— all of this aside, the conclusion is rather impressively moving. And the build-up to said big horror 'reveal' is done in a timely fashion, even on a second viewing (mainly because one sort-of forgets what it was all about because it was so clunky). My main issue with the film's puzzle is this: who is Wendy (Amanda Crew), and how does she have such great research skills to solve the property ownership mystery? We will never know. Shy of an early throwaway remark by the drunk father Peter Campbell (Martin Donovan), we know nothing of Wendy. She is a relative (cousin?), she's young... but how did she know to look up so much in the library and land registry... and why do we know so little about her? That's the real puzzle. Forget the house, the corpses and ghosts. Who is WENDY?!

All of this brings me to my next point...

Poorly Written Supporting Roles

Oh brother. Both of these films really die a thousand deaths with their sidekicks.

With The Haunting in Connecticut we have the emotional mother (one should note that Virginia Madsen actually does a great job here, despite there being so little to her persona), the drunk and angry father, the siblings, Wendy (who is she?!), and another cancer patient—who is also a Reverend and expert on all things ghosts (aka the stand-in horror saviour). They all lack any sort of dimension. It is painful to think of. Oh, and I left out the ghosts—aka idle haunters.

Mind you, whilst I am rambling on—Detective Pikachu isn't all that much better. In fact, what's even worse here, is shy of Lucy Stevens (Kathryn Newton), I'd beg to say that no one else has any character development worth mentioning (I suppose one could note that Ken Watanabe is playing Lieutenant Hide Yoshida—a shell of an official). Most of the cast though is just Pokemons and their trainers. Just this Pokemon here, trainer there combos. Nothing more, nothing less.

Showdowns Galore

When it comes to showdowns, these two films rock.

The Haunting in Connecticut boasts the destruction of its entire set piece, whilst Detective Pikachu really rolls out the carpet and delivers a large CGI whammo battle in the air with skyscrapers and smoke. The positives: Detective Pikachu has its final twist to deliver, as does The Haunting in Connecticut. Interestingly, both films have a fight for justice, and a similar universal ending: the happy resolution offered to the survivors. The negatives: both films lack any real depth or anything new to say.

This is basically a total draw. Perhaps one should say, Detective Pikachu is perhaps more open-ended, and therefore vaguely hints at the notion of a larger world view—in the sense that Pikachu himself has a life that extends beyond this singular task... whereas, the family, who survives their Connecticut haunting, well, just survives. We don't know much about them, and we don't know what happened to them afterwards, or even what 'truth' this story is based on—their lives and purposes just end with the credits cue.

Conclusion

OK, so this comparison is a bit mean—for one, The Haunting in Connecticut had a rather lean budget of $10Million (in 2009). And Pokémon Detective Pikachu is on the far end of the 'other' spectrum, produced ten years later (2019) with a budget of $150Million. Both films are (financial) success stories, bringing in much more than they cost. Heck—The Haunting in Connecticut actually has a sequel, and no doubt, somehow... I'm sure there will be another Pokémon film in the near future.

But this isn't a tie.

You see, for all the wonderful touches director Peter Cornwell embeds in his horror (the whispered children's tale is one of these), there is one mighty problem with The Haunting in Connecticut—shy of being a film that carries a great subplot about cancer treatment in the 80s (a very well-meaning one, might I add), the film has no other layer to it. It is basically just a horror film. A fun and exciting, and well-meaning, horror film.

Whereas, on the flip side, and very much unexpectedly, Pokémon Detective Pikachu is more than just an exploitation of the Pokémon world. It is a comedy, an action film, a bit of the good old fantasy world building franchise ketchup film... and well—a kind-hearted film about a boy and his pet, a boy and his father, and a mystery. This is what perhaps gives Pokémon Detective Pikachu a bit of an edge. It is more evolved.