Coming in 2015, something you should worry about.

Peanuts, the syndicated comic created by  Charles M. Schulz that ran from October 1950 to February 2000, is one of my most favorite things ever.

I don't think American literature has ever provided us with a gang us relatable us the one provided by Schultz. Sure, Charlie Brown is probably one of the world's biggest losers ever, but how could you not end up rooting for him by the end of every strip? Every gag involving him losing made us laugh, and yet made us feel bittersweet about it. You couldn't help but feel bad for him.

And let's not forget the rest of the characters in Peanuts. Who didn't want a friend like the way to wise for his age Linus? Who didn't have a friend like the crabby and cynical Lucy that you couldn't help but hate, but ultimately agree with, since she's right? And who could forget how hilarious it was to see Lucy lusting after Schroeder, who didn't return her affections (As someone whose been in similar situations like that since her age, I cannot stress how bad I felt for her).

And let's not forget the most famous character in the strip, Snoopy. Snoopy, without a doubt, is one of the biggest, but most lovable smart asses ever. I doubt I'd ever want to own a dog like Snoopy, I'd be amused by him, but I wouldn't be able to handle his constant demands.

Anyway,  I love how despite the simplicity of Peanuts, its able to convey so much emotion that was easily translated into its hand drawn TV specials and theatrical movies.

Sadly though, that brings me to the purpose of my post. Recently, 20th century Fox bought the rights to Peanuts, and have announced that they will release a new Peanuts film on Thanksgiving 2015. The worst part? It'll be CGI.

First of all, I cannot believe that Schultz's estate allowed this to happen. Peanuts doesn't belong in a CGI world. It doesn't keep with the essence of the original material.

I mean, look at how simple the animation was in the TV specials. CGI usually inhabits worlds with chaos, Peanuts isn't about that. There's an almost zen like quality to the strips that I doubt that the movie will capture.

In case you're wondering, the movie will be directed by Steve Martino, the director of Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who!, which, in my opinion, is the best Dr. Seuss adaption ever, but he also hid Ice Age: Continental Drift, which is the worst Ice Age movie ever. I have mixed feelings about the director.

I'm not going to lie though, even though I think CGI is a horrible idea for Peanuts, I'm still going to see the movie. I love Peanuts way to much to not at least be curious about it

Film Criticism Is Not For Me

This semester, I'm taking "International Film Studies" as part of my film studies minor.

It'd be fun, if the professor wasn't so...opinionated.

In the first day of class, he actually warned us: "If you announce your love for a film that I hate, I will shoot down your thoughts about it."

Here's some samples:

On Steven Spielberg's Oscar winning bio Schindler's List:

"It's a movie that teaches us that if you use a minority as a cheap labor force and claim that you're doing so to save them, you'll be recognized as a hero."

On the movie that no one saw this year:

Random Student: "Sir, what did you think of The Avengers?"

Professor: "Avengers was the type of movie that everyone either liked or loved, that I vehemently hated."

On The Dark Knight Rises:

"It's an extremely fascist movie. I mean, we have a foreigner, who helps the lower class stand up to the 1%, and yet, our hero is a white guy who defends the 1% and we have to cheer him on as he puts the lower class back in their place."

The last one really got me. I don't mind people voicing their opinions (although it would help he got his facts straight. Bane, the "foreigner" wasn't really trying to help the lower class stand up for themselves. In reality, he was trying to destroy Gotham by doing that, so it really doesn't count, but whatever). My problem though, was how that comment made me realize I'd never be good at film criticism.

According to wikipedia, film criticism is the "analysis and evaluation of film." The people doing this have to dissect a movie, practically scene by scene, to discuss its worth. As a film lover, I'd always wanted to do something like that, but after seeing my professor doing it, I doubt I can.

For me to find the merits of a movie, I do it by seeing how entertaining it is to me. I mean, even bad movies can be entertaining (Troll 2 anyone?), so to me, a movie has to be memorable in some way. If it's forgettable, then that's the biggest sin a movie can commit.

And, I also MUST form a bond with the characters. If it's a movie about despicable people doing despicable things, the film has to get me to root for them (which is the reason why I didn't like 2010's critically acclaimed, box office hit The Town, I ended up rooting for the cops to win since the main characters, bank robbers, weren't likable.) 

But if a movie can get me to root for the characters, to cheer for them throughout the movie, or feel the pain, horror, or joy they're feeling onscreen, then the movie, to me, will be worth my time.

I mean, I can't dig deep into a film to determine what the hidden messages in it are. If it entertains me and I'm still talking about it the next day, then I know it's a good movie, not because it's secretly presenting some ideas to its audience.

I mean, it's the same reason why I can enjoy crap that's supposedly bad for me, like the 1st and last Transformers movie (it's pure dumb fun, that's it), and yet, not enjoy movies that are supposedly good for me like Gone With the Wind (Seriously, the movie is at least 90 minutes too long, and Scarlet O'Hara is one the most annoying film characters ever). 

Either way, I'm glad I'm taking this class. I love film, and I'm glad the lesson it taught me about me and film criticism, it's showing me so much about film. I mean, it's a class on foreign films, so it's great to see a bunch of films every week that we normally don't see. Last week we were treated to Dreyer's Vampyr, one of the most visually stunning films I've ever seen (even if the film had no plot). And the week before, Vertov's Man with a Movie Camera, a brilliant silent documentary that shows us that film really can take you anywhere.

Besides, he admitted to shedding a few tears during the last few minutes of Dark Knight Rises, so it's not like he's completely heartless.

So, anyone think that they're up for film criticism?

"I deserve to see it!"

So, a few days ago, I went in to interview an electrical engineer for a story on how UTPA received a grant for a bunch of engineering stuff. Its pretty cool.

Essentially, the National Science Foundation awarded UTPA this money to do more research in thin films and semiconductors by creating a sputtering facility, a place where they can actually manufacture integrated circuits (they're kind of like micro chips, just to give you an idea).

Anyway, so 3 professors were in on the research and I went to interview them. The last one, the electrical engineer (who shall not be named), was really nice. She explained about the sputtering facility, how it would work, a bunch of stuff that the other professors didn't fill me in that made my article look more sciensy.

It was actually going pretty great, and right when the interview was ending, I did what I usually do when the interview's ending, I asked, "Is there anything else you'd like to say?"

Usually, that's meant for the article, like, I'm asking the person if he or she wants to have the final word and I can include it in the story, instead, she said, "Yes, I'd like to see the article before its published."

Now, if you're in the field of journalism, you know that that's a big no no. I mean, it wouldn't be fair, its as if you're allowing the person you interviewed to get you to change it into his or her own view. It wouldn't be fair.

Surprisingly, I was taken aback by this request. Its weird, I've been with The Pan American since January, and I knew that some of the interview subjects would ask this, but since it rarely happened to  me, I forgot about it.

After a brief brain fart, my journalism brain kicked into gear.

"Oh, I'm sorry. I can't let you do that." I replied as nicely as I could.

"Why?" She responded.

Oh joy, I thought.

At that point I wanted to get out, so I thought up of a few things to say to end the conversation.

"You see, it wouldn't be fair. Its unethical."

"Ethical? What makes it unethical?" She said, her voice slowly rising to a point that an alarm was going off in my head.

So, what do I do next? Do I say something smrt that cools down the situation? Do I politely explain to her the ethics of journalism and tell her why I can't let her see the article before its published?

No.

I end up getting another brain fart, and the journalism 101 ethics disappear from my brain. I'm not good under stress. Especially when the attacker is a grandma figure.

Anyway, after 2 seconds, I said the best thing I could think of.

"Look, I just don't think it would be fair to let you see it before its published. I mean, it wouldn't be fair..."

"Fair? FAIR? FAIR! I was nice enough to let you interview me! You should be nice enough to let me see the article! I deserve to see it!"

I was stunned when she said that. I mean, who actually says that to a reporter? Shouldn't they be worried as to how they will look like in the article (not that I was thinking of badmouthing her in my article, just wondering what  big time reporters think when this happens to them).

Anyway, so after a stunned silence, I said that I'd talk to my editor and see what she'd do about it. Just something to make it look like I was taking her request seriously.

Then, she said something that made me realize something.

"Its just that, I explained so much technical stuff to you, that I want to make sure that what you quote from me is accurate. I don't want to look like an idiot because you misquoted me."

Then I understood what she wanted, it wasn't the whole article that she wanted, she just wanted the stuff that involved her (which, in the final piece, was like, 30%).

Now that I understood what she wanted, so with that in mind, I eased the situation. I offered to read from my notes what she told me to ask her if what I wrote down was accurate to what she said (it was), and, I also offered that, before the article would get published, I would email her the stuff from her interview that I'd use in my article, ask her if its accurate, and fix any errors before publishing it. She (begrudgingly) accepted. We shook hands, I bid her a good day and left.

Sure, this reminded me about the sort of stuff reporters go through, but I realized, the people being interviewed also have some worries on their mind.

I mean, they worry about how they'll be portrayed on paper, and while it is our job to present the news first, we also have to be careful as to how our subjects are portrayed on paper.

All it took was a (surprisingly aggressive) little old lady who's barely in my article.