[HPFGU-Movie] silly question

[S]

> >How's this for a silly question -- since Daniel Radcliffe in real life needs
> >to wear glasses, did they put his prescription in Harry's glasses??  Those
> >glasses don't look like they have any prescription in them, the few times
> >they look like glass.  I just cleaned my glasses and that thought 
> occurred to
> >me -- why not put Dan's prescription in the glasses, since he needs them
> >anyway?  He must not need them very badly to be able to make do without 
> them.

I know a couple of people who are functionally blind without their glasses 
- but they can get by without them, so long as they don't have to read. 
Daniel could have very bad eyesight, but be able to act - so long as he 
rehearsed in glasses, so he knows what to do and where to go.

>D.R. said somewhere along the way that he no longer needs specs. His
>prescription must have been pretty weak for him to be able to say that
>truthfully.
>
>As I understand it (I am a specs-wearer and count at least two optometrists
>among my friends), if a child (i.e. pre-puberty) requires corrective
>lenses, it is  usually a sign of a congenital defect somewhere along the
>line - such children are destined to require correction indefinitely (the
>most common defects usually get slightly worse during puberty but then get
>slightly better when one approaches 40). Furthermore, men with defective
>vision have a 90-something per cent chance of passing it on to their sons.
>Dan's dad wears glasses. Draw your own conclusions. :-)

Two of my four brothers required corrective lenses before puberty (one was 
short sighted, I don't remember about the other) - both were able to see 
perfectly well without glasses by the time they were 12 or so. It might be 
the case that *usually* children who need glasses will need them when they 
are adults . . . but certainly not *always*.

~Say