Who Illustrated 'Fish Is Fish'?

Hunting down vintage cartoon fish merchandise feels a bit like going on a tiny treasure hunt, and I love every minute of it. I usually start online — eBay and Etsy are the obvious first stops because they have huge archives and you can set searches and saved alerts for keywords like 'vintage fish toy', 'retro fish plush', or 'cartoon fish pin'. Mercari and Depop are great for younger sellers unloading attic finds, and don't forget specialty auction sites like Heritage Auctions or LiveAuctioneers for higher-end pieces. Outside the internet, I haunt local thrift stores, estate sales, and flea markets. Antique malls and specialty toy shops often have hidden gems; I’ve snagged odd ceramic fish figurines and enamel pins at weekend markets. Comic-cons and vintage toy shows also host dealers who specialize in character merch — even if you don’t buy, it’s a good way to learn makers' marks and price ranges. A few tips I swear by: take lots of photos and ask for provenance if the seller claims it’s collectible; check for maker marks, condition issues like paint flake or hairline cracks, and be mindful of repros. For fragile or high-value items, factor in shipping insurance. It’s such a satisfying hobby — finding a quirky vintage fish pin or a faded lunchbox feels like rescuing a tiny piece of someone’s childhood, and that thrill never gets old.

Oddly enough, the history of cartoon fish is messier and more charming than you'd expect. I like to trace their roots back to the very birth of animation — the 1910s and 1920s — when film pioneers were doodling all kinds of creatures, including sea life, as part of experimental shorts. Early animated loops and novelty films often used fish and underwater scenes because they were visually playful and let animators stretch physics for gags. By the 1930s, studios like Disney and Fleischer were churning out theatrical shorts that featured anthropomorphic animals and occasional fish characters, giving those creations wider exposure in movie theaters. So pinning a single "first popular" fish is tricky: popularity came in waves. The medium matured through decades, and then later decades gave us unmistakable mainstream fish icons — my favorites being the bright, personality-driven characters from films like 'The Little Mermaid' and 'Finding Nemo'. Those later hits crystallized what a beloved cartoon fish could be, but the lineage goes back to those early silent-era experiments, and I find that long, winding evolution pretty delightful.

Douglas Adams wrote 'So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish', and I still grin at that title every time I say it out loud. I love how the line feels both silly and oddly philosophical — very much his trademark. The book itself is the fourth installment in the 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' series and follows the oddball aftermath of Earth's destruction, Arthur Dent's unlikely romance with Fenchurch, and a whole lot of Douglas's dry, British humor. I first discovered the book through a battered paperback someone left on a bus, and reading it felt like finding a secret club where wit and absurdity were the membership card. Douglas Adams's timing and playful twists on logic stick with me; you can feel the radio-series roots in the pacing and dialogue. If you like whimsical sci-fi with sharp observations about humanity, this one never disappoints — and for me it still sparks a smile every few chapters.

I get asked this a lot whenever people bring up 'Little Fish' in conversation, and I love how layered the question can be. If you mean the 2020 film with Olivia Cooke and Jack O'Connell, it's not based on a true story — it's a fictional, intimate sci-fi drama adapted from a short story and a screenplay that imagine a world where a memory-erasing virus quietly reshapes relationships. The filmmakers clearly mined real feelings and anxieties—loss, grief, the fear of someone you love becoming a stranger—but the plot and the pandemic itself are creations of fiction rather than a retelling of actual events. There's also the older Australian movie called 'Little Fish' from the mid-2000s, starring Cate Blanchett. That one is a gritty, character-driven drama about addiction and attempts at breaking free of a destructive past. Again, it's not a literal true-story biopic; it borrows from real social issues and authentic human behavior to feel lived-in, but the narrative and characters are dramatized. In both cases, the films are strengthened by realism in mood, performances, and detail, which can make them feel like they could've happened to someone you know. So, no — neither version is a true-story adaptation. What I love about both is how they capture emotional truth even while remaining fictional; they use invented situations to say something honest about memory, love, and survival, and that kind of storytelling sticks with me long after the credits roll.

The 'Little Fish' that stayed with me is the 2020 indie: a small, aching drama about a couple trying to keep their life together while a mysterious virus robs people of their memories. I followed Emma and Jude through grocery runs, old apartment rooms, and the tiny, fragile rituals couples build to prove to each other that they mattered. The film doesn’t go big on spectacle; instead it lives in close-ups, the silences between lines, and the constant, creeping fear that who you love could simply become a stranger overnight. What grabbed me most was how the premise — memory loss as a kind of slow, domestic apocalypse — lets the movie examine intimacy in a new way. It’s less about action and more about the mundane bravery of staying put: making lists, recording voice messages, keeping physical tokens. There’s also this melancholy optimism threaded through the performances; the movie suggests that love is not only memory but also habit and choice. I walked away thinking about how fragile identity is, how much we’re held together by stories we tell each other, and how quietly heroic everyday devotion can be. It’s the kind of film that leaves a soft, stubborn ache in your chest, in a good way.

Right off the bat, what grabbed me was how the novel lives inside the protagonist's head while the adaptation turns that interior life into images and music. In the book, the narrative luxuriates in memory, small sensory details, and long, reflective passages about loss and hope — you really feel time folding back on itself. The film (or show) version of 'Little Fish' trims a lot of that interior monologue, so some of the subtler motivations become externalized: choices that were once ambiguous in print read as clearer intentions on screen. Another big shift is structure and pacing. The novel spreads scenes out, allowing quieter subplots and side characters to breathe; the adaptation compresses or merges them to keep momentum. That means certain friendships or backstories that felt rich on the page are either hinted at or combined into single composite characters. Visually, the screen version leans hard on recurring motifs — water, reflections, rain — turning lyrical prose into repeated visual images and a melancholic soundtrack. The ending is the kind of change that will divide people: the book closes on a more ambiguous, inward note, while the adaptation opts for something that reads as slightly more resolved and cinematic. I liked both for different reasons; one scratched that obsessive, contemplative itch, the other made me feel things in a blunt, immediate way. Finally, tone shifts matter. The novel's voice is intimate and patient, letting metaphors accumulate; the adaptation chooses clarity and emotional immediacy, often at the expense of slower, meditative beats. If you loved the book's small pleasures — offhand lines, interior contradictions, extended memories — you'll miss some of that on screen. But if you appreciate a tighter narrative and vivid imagery, the adaptation does a strong job translating the core themes. Personally, I enjoyed how each medium highlighted different facets of the same story and left me thinking about it long after the credits rolled.

I dug up the filming details because the cityscape in 'Little Fish' felt so familiar and moody. It was primarily shot in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada — the production leaned on Vancouver’s rainy streets and diverse urban fabric to create that lived-in Pacific Northwest vibe. The movie is actually set in Portland, Oregon, but the crew used Vancouver to stand in for Portland, so Vancouver doubled as Portland on screen. From a young filmmaker’s perspective, that choice makes total sense: Vancouver has that wet, overcast aesthetic and the infrastructure to support shoots, so you get authentic-looking street scenes without the same permitting headaches and costs you might hit in the U.S. The result is convincing — when watchng 'Little Fish' I kept spotting those small, atmospheric details (neon signs, wet pavement, quiet back alleys) that sell the idea of Portland even though the camera was in Canada. It’s a neat example of how location choices shape a film’s mood, and seeing Vancouver pull off Portland made me appreciate the production design even more.

I’ve been keeping an eye on all the chatter around 'The Magic Fish' sequel, and here’s the best, clear-headed rundown I can give: as of mid-2024 there hasn’t been a widely confirmed theatrical release date for a follow-up that’s popping up on every calendar. 'The Magic Fish' has developed a devoted fanbase, so a sequel rumor will float around fast, but actual studio confirmation and an official theatrical date tend to come a bit later — often after festival runs, test screenings, or when a distributor decides whether to lean into theaters or streaming first. If the sequel has been greenlit and the team is aiming for movie theaters, studios usually pick a slot that fits their target audience and awards season ambitions. For a smaller, character-driven title like 'The Magic Fish', that often means either a fall festival launch followed by a limited theatrical run (think October–November) or a spring/summer limited release to build word-of-mouth. Big tentpole studios might schedule summer dates, but indie or mid-budget sequels often prefer quieter windows to let critics and fans build momentum. From announcement to theatrical debut, it’s common to see a 12–24 month gap, depending on production timelines and distribution deals. It’s also worth noting the increasing blur between theatrical and streaming paths. Some sequels that would’ve been theatrical a few years ago end up on streaming platforms or have day-and-date releases. If the team behind 'The Magic Fish' strikes a deal with a streamer, the “arrives in theaters” part might be very limited or skipped entirely. So when people ask specifically about a theatrical arrival, the clearest sign is an official press release or the film’s listing on major ticketing sites — those are the moments you can mark on a calendar. If you’re itching to know the moment a date drops, follow the production company and the film’s official social channels, set alerts for industry outlets like Variety and Deadline, and keep an eye on festival lineups (Sundance, TIFF, Venice, etc.) which often reveal a film’s early strategy. I’ll be watching the same channels — I love catching a sequel’s first trailer and making plans to see it opening weekend. Whatever the path, I’m excited to see how they expand the story and will definitely be first in line if it hits theaters near me — that opening-night popcorn energy is everything.