woodysortofword

you can marry the OP ಠ_ಠ

Those definitions were absolutely terrible. The weird fake british voice really takes away from the entire project.

I think if you want it to be taken more seriously, there are some improvements you could make.

1. Completely redo the definitions. The fake british voice is sloppy, unprofessional, and frankly just dumb. It's so grating.

2. Don't dress up in weird fake mustaches and wigs to do your transition into the "you'll never go hungry in denver" segment. It makes your project look like one huge joke. Same with the sarcastic "why are there still homeless?" transition. I'd suggest going around, interviewing some non-homeless people and getting soundclips to use that way. It'll take more time because you'll have to gather a bunch of opinions, but I think it'll really add to the authenticity of the project.

3. Speed up the segment of you making yourself dirty. There is zero need for your slow-mo hair waving and again, it adds to the sloppy, joke-y feel of the project.

4. When you add a source citation to the bottom of your statistics, cite the source ("U.S. Census" rather than http://www.etcetc) rather than pasting the URL. It looks more professional.

5. Replace the burger time song. It's terrible for what you're trying to do, IMO, and distracting.

Overall I really liked it and thought you got some interesting footage.

Depends on the office. I worked at a Prosecutors office that had a policy of never overcharging; if you plead, you plead to the top count in the indictment. To get a plea you have to confess to every crime you've ever committed, even unrelated to current charges, and if there was something worse than what you were charged with, you plead to that top count instead.

This was so, when they testified against their co-conspirators, the defense attorneys could never say, "Aren't you just here because you got X deal?" and make them less believable, as well as a belief that no charges ever be brought unless the case is solid enough to win without a plea. It'd still be better for the defendant because they can get a lesser sentence for cooperating.

Also if you give them food and they eat it, they can spend all of the money other people give them on drugs or alcohol, so you're still essentially funding their drug and alcohol use. There are also tons of programs to get homeless people food, and it doesn't seem to be helping to reduce homelessness.