I can understand some Portuguese\Spanish similarities but it's usually on Liveleak when a Brazilian newscaster is narrating video of an "off-duty" cop taking out some thugs. So it helps when there is context and they speak clearly like a newscaster does. And it helps that it's Brazilian Portuguese, the Portugal accent sounds much different to my ear. I was hoping that studying Spanish for years would give me a leg up on Portuguese but I'm kidding myself.

I checked out some of the LangFocus vids on Youtube, thanks to your post.

Good stuff. I will have to check if he has a video doing the same comparison between Spanish and Portuguese.

I'm not sure I understand, what is so odd about IT management removing admin rights for most users after the entire site got infected by the Zotob worm?

I worked at one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in 2005 and I came into work late one day in August. I found people standing around the parking lot smoking cigarettes saying every last computer was infected, I thought they were exaggerating. Nope, every last networked computer was infected by whatever worm was going around, thousands of them. IT took away admin rights for most desktop user accounts after that one.

Couldn't watch it, this manic glibness works for sitcom sidekicks but is annoying in this context.

This guy is everything I hate about amateur internet videos, especially these endless "everything you know is wrong" videos. I couldn't even stand to watch it, had to scroll down and listen to about half of it before I stopped it.

Along with this giddy condescending tone that's more suited for 8th graders he comes out with empty-headed shit like "this led international scholars to declare that the Soviet Union was the real iconic saviors of Europe during the war". I think even an 8th grader could spot the bad grammar and requisite misuse of the word "iconic".

You got your myths from TV and movies and now look to the internet to clear them up? Read a shelf of books instead.

If only you had had a second chance to submit the post ;-)

Agreed. I scrolled it so I didn't have to see the video and just listened to the audio and read the subtitles. If it's not an irritating presenter then it's a video full of hyper-rebus over-edited visuals. Or sometimes a mixture of both.

I have studied Spanish all my life and am constantly reminded how grateful I am that I didn't have to learn English as a second language. The difference in the details of spelling and pronunciation between the two languages is orders of magnitude apart. On the other hand verbs, nouns and adjectives are less complex in English. I'm still trying to get a grip on the subjunctive tense after all these years.

The same audience that could appreciate an apostrophe joke. <cricket....cricket>

Thanks for all of the replies. That makes sense, that it could be genuine if the "surprised" actor was the first to be filmed, while the offscreen actor throws in an ad-lib when saying his lines. Then the director likes the improvised line, adds it to the script, then films the 2nd actor later.

Sometimes the IMDB trivia section can be a graffiti wall of pretty stupid stuff, take this gem from "Dirty Harry" for example:

The sniper calls himself "Scorpio" which is the Zodiac sign for people born between October 24th and November 22nd. November 22nd 1963 is the date that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a sniper in Dallas, Texas, a killing that the Clint Eastwood character in In the Line of Fire (1993) would be directly involved in.

I'm glad this thread had a Hollywood ending. ;-)

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 was waiting for Leslie Nielsen's voice at the end - "I just wanted to tell you good luck. We're all counting on you"

I recommend just listening to the audio, it had some interesting points. But like many informational videos this one is edited with that standard infantile overuse of graphics, edits and effects.

Also am I the only one on the planet who doesn't understand usage of aɪər, ʉ, ð and sometimes ʊ? Wikipedia uses those IPA symbols like they are supposed to be helpful but they're Greek to me.

Were there supposed to be 21 in this video? I don't think she made it to 10.