Encyclopocalypse Publications has put out an official novelization of CHOPPING MALL, the 1986 Jim Wynorski techno-horror about three security robots that develop opinions about the teenagers locked in the Park Plaza Mall after closing. The book is written by Joshua Millican, based on the Wynorski and Steve Mitchell screenplay, and as [Bloody Disgusting](https://bloody-disgusting.com/books/3808528/chopping-mall-official-novelization-of-1986-cult-classic-coming-later-this-year/) framed it when the project was first announced, the commission exists because the cult around this movie refuses to die. Forty years on, people still want more time in that mall.

The setup, per Encyclopocalypse's own copy, sticks close to the film: four couples, a mattress store, an overnight party, three Protector units that misread their assignment in the most literal way possible. What's new is the connective tissue. [Fangoria](https://www.fangoria.com) flagged in their coverage that the novelization adds action beats and pads the body count, which is the right instinct. The original runs lean. Wynorski shoots a kill, cuts, moves on. A book has room to let a Protector roll down a corridor for three pages of dread.

The more interesting addition is interiority. The headline Fangoria led with, getting inside the mind of a killbot, is the thing prose can actually deliver that 1986 effects work could not. The Protectors in the film are gorgeously dumb: tank treads, claw arm, single red sensor, a voice module that purrs "Thank you. Have a nice day" after electrocuting a teenager. On screen they are pure exterior. The Robert Short design work is the whole performance. On the page you get to decide what the targeting logic sounds like from the inside, and that is a genuinely fun problem for a writer to inherit.

This is happening inside a larger trend. [Rue Morgue's](https://rue-morgue.com/tie-in-me-up-tie-in-me-down-the-chopping-mall-re-opens-its-doors/) coverage situates the CHOPPING MALL book inside Encyclopocalypse's ongoing line of 1980s horror tie-ins, a deliberate resurrection of the mass-market paperback novelization as a format. For a generation of us, the Alan Dean Foster ALIEN, the Dennis Etchison HALLOWEEN II under the Jack Martin pseudonym, the various FRIDAY THE 13TH paperbacks: those books were where you went to find the scenes the MPAA cut, the character beats the runtime ate, the extra kill. Encyclopocalypse is rebuilding that shelf on purpose.

Wynorski's film deserves the prose treatment more than its reputation suggests. The practical work is sturdier than people remember. Kelly Maroney's head explosion is a real corn-syrup-and-squib gag, lit so the spray catches. The Protector units were functional radio-controlled builds, not puppets faked in cutaway, which is why the film's geography reads cleanly: you can see the robot and the victim in the same shot. That kind of staging is exactly what a novelization should respect rather than smooth over. You want the book to know where the claw is.

[Paperback Warrior's](http://www.paperbackwarrior.com/2024/10/chopping-mall-novelization.html) read on Millican's adaptation notes that he expands the supporting cast's pre-massacre lives, which is the move. The film's couples are sketched in the time it takes to establish who is sleeping with whom. A book can give the mall's night janitor a name, can let the Protectors patrol an empty food court for a chapter before anyone dies, can sit with the security control room and the bad lightning storm that fries the AI in the first place. That setup is the part of CHOPPING MALL the movie sprints past.

Whether the prose lands depends entirely on whether Millican resists the urge to wink. The trap with a tie-in like this is camp register: treating the Protectors as a joke because the internet treats them as a joke. The film itself plays the robots straight. They kill a clerk in the first act and the tone locks in. If the novelization commits the same way, if it lets the killbot's targeting subroutine be a genuinely creepy POV instead of a punchline, Encyclopocalypse has something worth shelving next to the Foster.

The book is out now from Encyclopocalypse. Have a nice day.

Conan O'Brien is voicing a new character in TOY STORY 5 called Smarty Pants, a Fisher-Price-style potty-training toy who crosses paths with Jessie on what [SlashFilm](https://www.slashfilm.com/2181282/conan-obrien-toy-story-5-character-explained/) frames as her first real solo arc in the franchise. That's the news. The interesting part is underneath it.

The casting looks obvious only after the fact. O'Brien's whole comic register, the self-aware bigness, the willingness to commit to a dumb premise past the point where most performers bail, is exactly the engine a Pixar side character needs. The TOY STORY scene-stealers have always been specificity machines. Rex is anxiety in a t-rex shell. Mr. Pricklepants is a community-theater snob. The bit isn't the toy; the bit is the very narrow human flaw the toy is built around. A potty-training toy voiced by Conan is a one-line pitch that already implies a character arc. That's good screenwriting math.

The other detail worth pulling on, The other detail worth pulling on, per an [AOL](https://www.aol.com/articles/conan-obrien-toy-story-5s-170000000.html) piece quoting production designer Bob Pauley, is that a Pixar intern contributed to Smarty Pants's design, a credit BAD VIDEO has not independently confirmed. Pauley told AOL the intern's pass helped land the balance between gag-toy and believable nursery object. That's a small credit on a big movie, but it tells you something about how Pixar still runs its design pipeline: a junior pass can shape a character the marketing department is going to put on a lunchbox.

It tracks with how this franchise has historically built its supporting cast. The original TOY STORY's character department turned a Mr. Potato Head and a slinky dog into load-bearing comic infrastructure because the design committed to the toy first and the joke second. If Smarty Pants reads on screen the way SlashFilm is betting it will, that's the same trick: the toy has to be a real object before O'Brien's voice can make it funny. An intern who can hold that line is doing real work.

The structural question is in the script's use of him. TOY STORY side characters fail when they get deployed as a running gag with no payoff. They work when the screenplay sets up a small character problem in the first act and pays it off with the toy doing something only that toy could do. Ducky and Bunny in TOY STORY 4 are the textbook example. Forky is the counter-example, a character whose arc front-loaded the movie and then had nowhere to go in the back half. Smarty Pants is going to live or die on whether the screenplay knows what he wants and whether what he wants pays off the Jessie story he's attached to.

Which is the actual stakes question here. Jessie carrying a TOY STORY movie is a structural shift the franchise has been circling since TOY STORY 2. If Smarty Pants is the comic relief riding shotgun on that arc, his job isn't to steal the movie, despite SlashFilm's framing. His job is to make Jessie's story land. A scene-stealer who pulls focus from the protagonist is a screenplay problem, not a feature. The good news is that Pixar usually knows the difference. The better news is that O'Brien, as a performer, has spent a career playing second banana to the bit and letting the bit win. That's the right instinct for this slot.

The release date gives them seven months of marketing runway, which means we'll see Smarty Pants in a trailer well before we see him in context. Reserve judgment until the character has a scene, not a sizzle reel. Pixar's intern, whoever they are, has already done the harder half of the job.