Latinos In Movies

I am a very big movie person and therefore the way Hispanics are viewed in movies does make a big deal for me. As stated in the documentary Hispanics were not always viewed as the good people in movies back when they first started being brought out in movies. Hispanics or latinos were usually viewed as the bad person in the movies. This documentary talked about how latinos usually played the roles of the thief or any other bad guy you could think of in a movie. I feel this did make a great impact on how latinos were viewed in the world because movies tend to be something that many people watch and if they keep viewing Latinos in this role they probably would think they are the same way in real life and are probably even frightened or threatened by them. Being portrayed as gangsters was not something that all latinos wanted to do. Of course many movies in which they were portrayed as gangsters did bring out a good message but again the way people outside viewed latinos started changing.

            It was mentioned that later on the role of latinos in movies did start changing. Of course they made it in big movies but they didn’t always play latino roles anymore. We now see Hispanics taking the roles of Europeans and or changing their hair colors or appearance to look Caucasian and play those roles. Of course in that comes them having to work on their accents because many latino actors do have a very strong accent and if so they are used in movies to portray illegal immigrants. Yes its very weird to immediately go into the topic of illegal immigration but in all honesty if you do watch many movies and find a latino playing a simple role they are usually and illegal worker or any character that falls close to that role. 

Change to GSU

If I could change anything about Georgia State University, it would probably have to be the way it is surrounded by so many homeless people. Of course that cannot be controlled because these people do not have jobs and we cannot just go out handing jobs to any homeless person. I feel maybe we can create homes for these people. Not exactly the ideal home but at least somewhere they could go where they won’t be out in the streets asking students for money or making students feel uncomfortable at a place where they are supposed to feel comfortable walking on the streets.

             I have been approached a couple of times by them and I won’t say they really bother a lot but at night it becomes very scary to be outside even if in a group. maybe not because of the homeless people at night but at this point it becomes more of being scared to get jumped or robbed or something of the sort. 

GOOD OR BAD 3-D EFFECTS?

Although many do think that the renewals of movies in a third dimensional view has made movie more realistic and interesting, many also believe that 3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension.

Digital 3-D, which has slowly been gaining steam over the past few years, is finally ready for its close-up. Just about every top director and major studio is doing it. These are not just animations but live-action films, comedies, dramas and documentaries. Disney and its Pixar studios have released five 3-D movies in the past year, including a 3-D-ified version of Toy Story. George Lucas hopes to rerelease his Star Wars movies in 3-D. And Steven Spielberg is currently shooting Tintin in it, with Peter Jackson doing the 3-D sequel next year. Live sports and rock concerts in 3-D have been showing up at digital theaters around the U.S. nearly every week.

Like I stated before many do believe it will make a great impact in the way viewers will react to such movies and the realness of them. For example, the new movie Tron, which was released December 17, was said to have astounded many viewers because of the great effects it carried out. Another good example would be, director James Cameron's Avatar, released December of 2009. Spielberg stated that it would be the biggest 3-D live-action film ever. More than a thousand people worked on it, at a cost in excess of $300 million, and it represents digital filmmaking's bleeding edge for some, it is an annoying distraction. Had digital 3-D been available a dozen or so years ago when Titanic was shot, he'd have used it, stated director James Cameron.

Although directors do feel making films three dimensional will make a better viewing if films others believe it just creates nausea and headaches. Some complaints regarding these films have been that it is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Also that its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D, it is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness, it limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose and that for moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.

Roger Ebert stated in his article that Cameron plans to rerelease Titanic in 3-D, and it's worth recalling his 3-D documentary, Ghosts of the Abyss, which he personally photographed from the grave of the Titanic. He feels Titanic 3-D will not be true 3-D, but Cameron is likely to do "fake 3-D" better than others have. Nevertheless Titanic is wonderful just as it stands, so why would anyone want to add a distraction? Some may say that it is merely to get money out of it. Although many movies do seem to come out worse once transferred to 3-D, one can never hold back the need to watch and see if it really did suck. So it is easy to say that Cameron doesn’t really just want to make the viewing better for everyone.