Look, I hate that this shit happens. Absolutely hate it, and I think that way too many cops are undertrained and/or improperly trained.

That being said, we can't see the driver's face. If you want to set a cop off, ignore his commands and glare and talk back. We got two out of three right on the video, and I bet you anything that if we could see the face of the guy talking we'd have the third.

It's still not right for the cop to escalate so dramatically and quickly, but as a viewer we have to not put ourselves in the driver's place and assume he was being a perfect respectful citizen off camera. Instead imagine the situation objectively and consider what other things the cop might have seen that were warning signs to him.

Depends - is it "(she will no longer have screen presence and her contract will be terminated) at the end of the series" or "she will no longer have screen presence and (her contract will be terminated at the end of the series)"?

But - if they took her off camera it was a partial win for justice, at least.

Close, but not quite. Read it again.

"Due to the position taken by actress Maria Fernanda Rios during various interactions on the show, which are not in line with those of the channel, she will no longer have screen presence and her contract will be terminated at the end of the series."

The judge is not going to have her contract renewed AFTER THE END OF THE SERIES. Not even at the end of this season, so she wasn't fired at all, and not a thing happened to the other judges, or the announcer that all joined in. At least they (allegedly) took her off camera, but apparently she's still working with them off screen as long as they exist as a show.

It was interfering from off camera. Wasps are like that. Luckily it wasn't the type that implants it's eggs into other insects, so you can relax.

I've always wondered the same thing. What if they use a single camera, but both actors still run through the scene even though one of them is off camera? When the camera is over-the-shoulder, either the other actor is sitting there with the camera behind them, or it's a body double. I imagine it would be easier for the actors if they are both doing the whole scene even if the camera is not on them. If that's the case, that would explain the unscripted reactions - it might even make more sense since the offscreen actor might instinctively do things a little differently without the camera on them.

I was hoping this was going to answer a question I have asked for a long time but still don't have a clear answer. Is it common to have 2 cameras filming actors simultaneously during a shot/counter-shot scene in a standard Hollywood production, so it's recording their interactions in real time?

Or is it more likely done with one camera, with the actors filmed sequentially and responding to off-camera dialog as they speak their lines. And then the shot/counter-shot are strung together in editing.

Seems to me the one camera would be more logical, as otherwise the lighting resources themselves would have to be doubled and kept out of view. Also I don't ever remember seeing any pictures or footage from a movie set where they have 2 cameras and 2 sets of lights, etc.

The reason I keep asking is that on IMDB in the trivia section you always read some nonsense about somebody's onscreen reaction to some unscripted ad-libbed line being genuine.

Well if they aren't both in the same shot how could it be a genuine reaction if the shot/counter-shot are filmed with one camera at different times? And the dialog may be spoken and recorded hours apart?

Like this scene from the "Die Hard" trivia section:
Hart Bochner's line "Hans... Bubby!" was ad-libbed. Alan Rickman's quizzical reaction was genuine.

They weren't in the same shot, so how can his reaction be genuine when the line may have been ad-libbed several hours earlier or later. If it was ad-libbed at all.

It strikes me as stupid made-up shit that passes for trivia and knowledge on the Internet but wanted to get some opinions on this.

I often think 'If you're going to do 'magic' on TV, there needs to be at least one camera on the magician's hands at all times with no cuts'.
If they can reach off camera and then suddenly 'magic', I'll assume they had it set up just out of sight, and everyone on camera is just in on it pretending to not see the wires/mirror/second deck of cards set up in the chair/etc. That's how nearly every 'magic' TV show works, and it's tiring. Slight of hand magic is nothing if you don't see the hands the whole time....IMO.

It comes across as fake from the get-go. The camera just happens to be in the best position for the entrance and exit. The subject directs their comments to people off-camera and not to the person with the camera standing there the whole time in plain view who is not offering to help.

C'mon people.

I bet, off camera, they did...
Of course, with regard to that conversation---WHERE IS THE VIDEO??? SHOW ME THE VIDEO!
lol

My take, there's no way to tell if there was brutality. Most everything happened off camera. However, there's no legal reason for them to be demanding passengers ID themselves unless the officer had reason to believe they had committed a crime (being black doesn't count). That seemed to be the reason for all the action and over reaction.

Any word on what happened in the end? Did the daughter have an asthma attack? Did she get help? Not rendering assistance is one of the charges in Baltimore, isn't it? They do have a duty to provide medical assistance if it's needed, and a death due to neglecting that duty is manslaughter at least.

They likely had a litter from their lone house cat. That's happened to me on several occasions. Enjoy them as cute little menaces to society and then sell/give them away. Better to spay and neuter cats, but sometimes you get a cat that's already pregnant or it happens before you had a chance to.

From personal experience, a household with ~10 cats is manageable but that is where it gets hard (and I don't recommend it). Invest in a couple decent automated litter boxes, feeding set up so the cats don't crowd over one or two bowls. 4 is not bad. Makes for a fun little animal family. Hilarity always ensues. 1 is lonely, 2 is a rivalry, 3 is a crowd, but 4 is a silly family of prankster cats.

But then there is the mother who is off camera, so that's 5 cats. That's fun. Sibling cats who grow up around their mother become very caring and mature better. I had a scenario where my male and female kittens had kittens. It was so cool studying their family structure. Seeing the attachments the kittens have to the mother and father, and allowing it to grow to fruition is a joy to see, even if it's not always possible to keep the fam together every time.

Animal family units are awesome and I almost feel like every human family should have a protectorate animal family that is their duty to protect and nurture. If you can raise an entire animal family, you can do anything. Human families are narcissistic barbie playsets for most people, so this is less disturbing to me than a family with 4 children.

I wasn't quite clear. I don't mean scrap the system. I mean replace the officers, and train the new ones how to behave PROPERLY, and insist on severe punishment for any infraction. When the rule enforcer breaks the rules, they should have to pay twice what non-enforcers pay for the same crime...with no coddling in "protective custody".
I also agree with reversing the militarization. People will use the tools you give them...if you give them tools of war, they'll commit acts of war with them. Seems obvious to me.
My issue is that the "good cops" NEVER go after the bad cops themselves....as I see it, that makes them accessories after the fact, and also bad cops for obstructing justice. I'm fine with keeping any cop that's testified AGAINST another cop, even one that has documentation proving they stopped another cop from taking things too far. The rest need to go, IMO. They have all been complacent in the face of their own being criminal, and I'm simply not OK with that.
I do agree, simply enacting a zero tolerance policy for ANY officer misconduct, and stricter punishment than normal citizens get for the same infraction would remove most "bad cops" right away...but only if their fellow officers no longer cover up for them. With what we have today, there's no prosecution because they can't make a case when most officer crime happens off camera and the only witnesses either lie or refuse to testify. That's why I say they ALL need to go, and be replaced with new people who take the job knowing it's not a power trip and abuse won't be tolerated a whit. I also think they should have to waive their right to not talk, even self incriminate, in order to wield the authority they wield. I know it won't happen, but a newt can dream.

Yes, I agree, I know the job needs to be done, and he's got the job of doing it.
But it's his attitude, that he likes causing other people grief, and he's loving other people's misery. In fact, he's getting off on it.
What kind of a person must this guy be when he's off camera. Not a compassionate bone in his body.

Neat. Does the entire system *draw* 1kw, or does the beam actually deliver 1kw (seems unlikely)? Either way, it must require massive off-camera cooling equipment. I've seen arrays of LEDs used for welding before and that was impressive.

It must be a prototype because the company that makes it doesn't list this model, and don't give much information on the models they do list. And, of course, it doesn't look remotely practical, awesome as it is.

edit:

After a bit more reading, maybe it does emit 1000 watts. Also, look at this thing from their webpage:

http://www.nortonsandblasting.com/images/lasr-backpack_unit1web.jpg

That is a straight up proton accelerator if I've ever seen one (okay, maybe photons, but close enough) and I damn well want one. I promise to use it responsibly and never cross the streams.