Yeah, they're losing all their wolf-cred. Should have gone with the bustier.
Also, fencing not-Athens is too immoderate a concept for me. Wouldn't it be just as good to fence Athens then go stand on the other side of the fence and pretend?
Splendid! I hadn't been able to figure out how to cover that branch of the potential pun tree.
Uh-oh. When you run a joke into the ground, does a pun tree sprout from the remains? (Do not feel obliged to answer that.) Maybe the ground is rendered fallow. Or maybe it just gets a bit squelchy.
Ugh. A very appropriate description of my weekend/Monday. I wish I could be simply as confused as Mac looks there, rather than how very much I am. Anyway. End personal problems--it made me smile in spite of icky irony and appropriateness.
You know, probably taking the funny out of the latter statement by this: But I've actually always wondered about that ever since the first time I saw Daniel whip off his glasses to visibly show that it was a dramatic moment. I have glasses, and even though I can see a little without them, due to being nearsighted, I have never, ever been compelled to respond to negative, dramatic, or otherwise tense situations by blinding myself.
Maybe it's a case of, "If I can't see it, it can't see me" or "If I just ignore/don't look at it, it'll go away."
Tangenting off into the analytical: now we get to wallow in the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic rationales.
Extrinsic: Michael Shanks doesn't need glasses, and when they blocked the scene, the bit about removing the glasses seemed like a nice moment of physical business to punch up the emotional subtext. (This suggests that the director doesn't wear glasses either, or he'd know better.)
Intrinsic: Daniel has been in and out of sarcophagi so many times that he sometimes forgets that he needs the glasses. So he removes them in a moment of emphatic emotion, then realises he can't see a damned thing. Or maybe his vision actually fluctuates.
Extrinsic is the real reason, but intrinsic is so much more fun as an imaginative exercise, don't you think?
When talking about TV shows or other fannish stuff, unless the conversation has already mandated that the discussion be directed in an extrinsic direction, I am always and invariably going to talk about the intrinsic side of things. I have a very extreme dichotomy between my actors and my characters, and I tend to allow myself to objectify and analyze characters more than I do the actual people who play them.
Therefore, from a blocking perspective, I get it.
However, ignoring everything but in-universe, as I usually do to a ridiculous point, the idea that Daniel sort of forgets whether he can see or not actually sort of cracks me up from a character standpoint. More seriously, I guess it should be thought about that we glasses wearing people can usually see vague shapes even without our glasses at least, so he probably wouldn't actually bump into much without them. Also, some people who have nearsightedness (speaking from experience but very limited experience, as this has almost never happened), sometimes find it useful to take off their glasses when they want to really focus on something that's extremely close up, especially people. There's something about eye-to-eye contact, psychologically, rather than eye-to-glasses-to-eye contact... Maybe.
I usually don't bother, though.
And it's usually not intense personal moments for Daniel that he does this. More, "Damn it, Jim--" moments.
no subject
THUD!
no subject
no subject
Thou wall, O wall, O sweet and lovely wall,
Show me thy chink, to blink through with mine eyne!
no subject
That girdlest in those wolves, dive in the earth,
And fence not Athens!
Naw, yours works better.
no subject
no subject
I'm more concerned about the notion of wolves wearing girdles.
no subject
Also, fencing not-Athens is too immoderate a concept for me. Wouldn't it be just as good to fence Athens then go stand on the other side of the fence and pretend?
no subject
no subject
(Runs joke into ground, runs away)
no subject
Uh-oh. When you run a joke into the ground, does a pun tree sprout from the remains? (Do not feel obliged to answer that.) Maybe the ground is rendered fallow. Or maybe it just gets a bit squelchy.
no subject
no subject
Or up.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Can a bat be my sidekick now? Or must sidekicks be marine animals.
After all, I can't swim.
no subject
no subject
Hmmmmm......
I shall call him... Amadeus? Amadeus seems a good name for a bat.
no subject
And Daniel is blind as a bat without his glasses, so he and Amadeus have something in common.
no subject
Maybe it's a case of, "If I can't see it, it can't see me" or "If I just ignore/don't look at it, it'll go away."
Hmm.
And Amadeus it is!
no subject
Extrinsic: Michael Shanks doesn't need glasses, and when they blocked the scene, the bit about removing the glasses seemed like a nice moment of physical business to punch up the emotional subtext. (This suggests that the director doesn't wear glasses either, or he'd know better.)
Intrinsic: Daniel has been in and out of sarcophagi so many times that he sometimes forgets that he needs the glasses. So he removes them in a moment of emphatic emotion, then realises he can't see a damned thing. Or maybe his vision actually fluctuates.
Extrinsic is the real reason, but intrinsic is so much more fun as an imaginative exercise, don't you think?
no subject
Therefore, from a blocking perspective, I get it.
However, ignoring everything but in-universe, as I usually do to a ridiculous point, the idea that Daniel sort of forgets whether he can see or not actually sort of cracks me up from a character standpoint. More seriously, I guess it should be thought about that we glasses wearing people can usually see vague shapes even without our glasses at least, so he probably wouldn't actually bump into much without them. Also, some people who have nearsightedness (speaking from experience but very limited experience, as this has almost never happened), sometimes find it useful to take off their glasses when they want to really focus on something that's extremely close up, especially people. There's something about eye-to-eye contact, psychologically, rather than eye-to-glasses-to-eye contact... Maybe.
I usually don't bother, though.
And it's usually not intense personal moments for Daniel that he does this. More, "Damn it, Jim--" moments.
no subject
no subject
Yes, he can do that.
Because I said.
no subject
no subject