A topic for the discussion of Farscape, Smallville, and Due South. Beware possible invasions of Stargate, Highlander, or pretty much any other "genre" (read: sci fi or fantasy) show that captures our fancy. Expect Adult Content and discussion of the Big Gay Sex.
Whitefont all unaired in the U.S. ep discussion, identifying it as such, and including the show and ep title in blackfont.
Blackfont is allowed after the show has aired on the east coast.
This is NOT a general TV discussion thread.
People who watch soap operas seem to be especially prone to the actor=character problem.
Longterm actors, that doesn't surprise me as much -- when you spend 20 years playing the same role, the association is pretty close. OTOH, there are weekly soap magazines that are constantly showcasing the actors and asking them, "So, are you like your character at all?" and the answer is inevitably something like, "You mean, did I get my sister pregnant and throw myself off a cliff when I realized who she was, only to wash up ashore on a mystical island and suffer from total anmesia? Not really."
(I will say, being a soap veteran means always being able to play "Who is that guy" bingo. I haven't watched soaps in probably 8 years, and I still spot So-and-so from ATWT on Law & Order, e.g. The soap memory is long.)
Clearly, that intimacy is a bit much for some fans.
Come the HDTV revolution, scary fans will be walking up to actors saying, "You have 11,426 pores on your face. You know how I know? I counted."
Nothing terribly embarassing happened at that one, right?
Nothing that perspective hasn't taught me is pretty normal. But hearing y'all talk--sheesh. Serious lack of upbringing or balanced thinking sometimes.
The inability to separate character from actor happens with people who attend stage plays, too. I've had friends who are actively avoided or booed at in public situations after they've played a particularly nasty character. I think it's the fact that an emotional response gets triggered, and seeing the actor in a different setting can still recall that response. Of course, acting on the response is what separates the fidiots from the normal people.
On rewatch of Dr. Who's Blink, I still don't get exactly how
the weeping angels will stay frozen forever,
but I don't really mind. The drama held up very well, and it was nice not to be so scared.
Of course, acting on the response is what separates the fidiots from the normal people.
This, exactly.
I know I've sais this before, but after I saw Martin Sheen as a pedophile in The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane when I was about eleven, I've had a very hard time watching him in anything else, because he really creeped me out.
If I saw him on the street, though? Not a word. If I was introduced? I would politely shake his hand. I'm sure he's a perfectly nice person.
I just don't get how that disconnect -- the acting on it part -- happens more than, like, once in a blue moon.
ita, it doesn't work if
someone moves a single one of them,
but
if you look at the orientation, each statue is being looked at by another statue (sometimes more than one). Because they are being looked at, they remain stone, and because they remain stone, they can't move out of a line of sight.
You have to accept that
their stony glares count as stone-inducing glares, but that was already set up when the Doctor explained the "weeping" pose.
PC, shouldn't
turning the light off
accomplish the same thing, though? And it will happen.
Dr. Who:
Maybe the statues have really good night vision?
Well, they did opt to
turn out lights in their final
attack, so perhaps. But the same thing goes for a couple of
drop cloths.
Lalala! Doesn't matter. Lovely ep.
