So, a while back, I remember reading Brad Wright say that their plot explanation for Daniel not appearing in the Artic scenes with Jack -- the leg issue, which resulted in amputation -- would provide opportunity for a dark character study of Daniel.
I didn't see a single frame in the picture that supported that assertion. In fact, I thought it was the exact opposite: Daniel handled the setback unhumanly well.
Now, I wasn't at all bothered by its handling in the movie. I just thought it was strange that what's in the film doesn't square with that earlier declaration by Brad Wright. Did it get pared down for time, tossed out, or are they under the impression that it actually came across in the movie?
I didn't see a single frame in the picture that supported that assertion. In fact, I thought it was the exact opposite: Daniel handled the setback unhumanly well.
Now, I wasn't at all bothered by its handling in the movie. I just thought it was strange that what's in the film doesn't square with that earlier declaration by Brad Wright. Did it get pared down for time, tossed out, or are they under the impression that it actually came across in the movie?
Comment