Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:24:53 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> This is pretty close to what someone recently wrote as a review of
>> Avatar. After a brief case of, "Wow, there are vines hanging all over
>> the place.", you forget that you are looking at something CG at all. The
>> problem, as he pointed out, is that the next guy to use what made it
>> amazing will be used to make something that **won't** spend time on the
>> story, and *will* scream CG because of it. It will be all about, "See,
>> we can do this level of CG too!", and not about the story.
> 
> Interesting.  I'm somewhat apprehensive about Avatar myself; my wife's 
> got friends who are disabled, and they're quite unhappy about one of the 
> central the ideas behind the film being that if you're disabled, you 
> couldn't possibly live a normal life and the pinnacle of hope is that you 
> could do something that made you not be disabled.
> 
> Needless to say, my wife's friends who are disabled are fiercely 
> independent and find that premise to be quite offensive.
> 
> I may rent it on Netflix once just to see the effects, but I don't have 
> high hopes for the story.
> 
> Jim
Ugh.. Haven't even seen the film, but they *think* that because it 
offers someone that wants his problem fixed a solution, its 
anti-disability? Have I got that right? Why is it that some people, if 
a) they are born with one, or b) suffer one, but don't want it fixed, 
treat people offering solutions as though they are out to burn down 
their church, and the people that actually take up the offer as though 
they had betrayed the holy religion of disability, and need to be 
excommunicated. They have such massive chips on their shoulders that 
they would rather rob someone who *was*, for example, once sighted, of a 
chance to see again, than actually find themselves confronted with 
someone suggesting, "Don't you ever wonder what it would be like *to* see?"

With all respect to your wife's friends, some of these people are worse 
assholes to "normal" people, than normal people have ever been to them, 
and its a damn movie, in which the character *wanted* to have the 
choice, as a means to work on the front lines, not some frakking
bunch of scientists picking people with missing legs out of a hospital 
wards and beaming them into blue aliens without their bloody permission 
or request. Not every attempt to solve basic malfunctions in the human 
body is a conspiracy to destroy the "specialness" of people who, for 
what ever reason, develop a damn stupid chip on their shoulder about not 
wanting to even have the option, because it makes them feel somehow 
better to be part of a group that where all mistreated by idiots years 
earlier, as a result of their differences.

Yes, there are some that think they *need* fixing. But that just proves 
that non-disabled people can be assholes too, not that the ones 
protesting someone *choosing* to deny the holy writ of the disabled are 
apostates for opting to try the alternative, especially of they are, 
"*gasp*", restoring something they already had, not being asked to be 
given sight, after being born without it, or some other situation, where 
they *might* have a point about it being offensive to try to even offer it.

This is almost as absurd, forgive me saying so, as the protesters 
against the film because they didn't pick **it** as some sort of soup 
box for gay love stories, but went with what *most* other films always 
have, and made the love interests male and female. Its just bloody 
ridiculous.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message