Lonan3 Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2337881,00.html The good news (I hope), is that there is to be a new version made of The Dambusters film (Amadeus might not agree!), that looks to be more accurate than the original - except for one little detail..... THE ORIGINAL (1954) Budget £5 million Box office 8.4m tickets Special effects Models by Army photographic reconnaissance unit. Bouncing bombs from archive test shots painted over frame-by-frame Music Eric Coates’s march Name of Guy Gibson’s dog Nigger THE REMAKE (2007) Budget £21 million Box office £50 million predicted with DVD sales Special effects Bombs from King Kong animator Music Coates plus Oscar-winner Howard Shore Name of dog Trigger Okay we all know, and understand, that it's done to avoid giving offence etc., but.... It was the name of Gibson's black Labrador dog, killed in a hit-and-run accident on the day of the mission (in the film). In fact, the fatal accident took place the day before, and the car did stop (it was driven by an RAF officer). "Nigger" was also the codeword to indicate the breaching of the Möhne Dam although today deemed politically incorrect (despite the fact that it simply stems from the Latin word for black). So, the question is, is it reasonable to alter historically accurate facts in order to preserve the sensibilities of modern society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 So, the question is, is it reasonable to alter historically accurate facts in order to preserve the sensibilities of modern society? No. History is history and as such, it should be accurate. There's no point otherwise. I find it absolutely ludicrious that these days everyone can utter every profanity known to man and yet have to tiptoe around the name of a dog! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 For box office reasons, it's bound to somehow focus on the Yanks' involvement and have them try and claim full credit. God knows what the proposed remake of the Battle of Britain would show - one of the seven Yanks that took part single handedly saving us all no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smelly Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Well this looks like hollywood is lacking this here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 No. History is history and as such, it should be accurate. There's no point otherwise. When did The Dambusters become a documentary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feelslikeitshould Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 When did The Dambusters become a documentary? Exactly what I thought, it's a Hollywood movie, no-one is going to rely on 'facts' from a movie for anything, next years GCSE students aren't going to watch it countless times as revision for their history exam! Keeping the dogs name as Nigger is entirely inappropriate IMO, what it was aceptable to say 60 years ago isn't acceptable now. The dog was called Nigger because he was black, I think they are right to change the name, how can you possibly think otherwise!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smelly Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Well why not call it negro, if any of you know your spanish it means black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 When did The Dambusters become a documentary? Exactly what I thought, it's a Hollywood movie, no-one is going to rely on 'facts' from a movie for anything, next years GCSE students aren't going to watch it countless times as revision for their history exam! Keeping the dogs name as Nigger is entirely inappropriate IMO, what it was aceptable to say 60 years ago isn't acceptable now. The dog was called Nigger because he was black, I think they are right to change the name, how can you possibly think otherwise!? So you're in favour of re-writing history then. If it was acceptable 60 years ago, you should include it if your looking for historical accuracy. Why not call the film "Hydro-electrical power generator busters" or "Reservior busters" - after all dam is such a dead expression in these times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 If it was acceptable 60 years ago, you should include it if your looking for historical accuracy. The point is that it's a Hollywood action film, it's not looking to be historically accurate. It's looking to entertain. Sorry, but if you want to get your panties in a bunch over the name of a dog in a film, then you really need to think about why you're infected with nerd rage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 If it was acceptable 60 years ago, you should include it if your looking for historical accuracy. The point is that it's a Hollywood action film, it's not looking to be historically accurate. It's looking to entertain. Sorry, but if you want to get your panties in a bunch over the name of a dog in a film, then you really need to think about why you're infected with nerd rage. Just wait. Next thing will be that Douglas bader has a full compliment of legs so as not to offend the disabled. Bollocks. Bollocks. Bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 If we are being PC I would prefer "I say! Breasts!" Film or not, the problem with denying our history is that we empower the wrong people to write it. Leaving out one word, quickly leads to leaving out a sentence, a paragraph and soon a chapter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneArmedScissor Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 If we are being PC I would prefer "I say! Breasts!" Film or not, the problem with denying our history is that we empower the wrong people to write it. Leaving out one word, quickly leads to leaving out a sentence, a paragraph and soon a chapter. but if we leave the dog's name as "nigger" then 1984 will never happen. I'm hearing you brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 It's a film ... I bet you lot of different personalities were altered and merged to create the characters in the book and the movie ... lets say Barnes Wallis had two assistance Pete Franks and John Harris ... in the film there's not time or the space or budget to have two characters so they have one called Pete Harris ... what a terrible distortion of the truth. This debate isn't about artistic truth its about being PC. On the whole I can understand why they did it ... I'll never forget doing a section on the dam busters for a comprehension in English class aged 13 or so ... the teacher ... deliberately or not (?) got the only coloured kid in the class to read the section where they gave the code word : Nigger ... to accompanying sniggers and taunts from the class bullies and wide boys. I still can't work out if the teacher was being racist, if it was an honest mistake, or if he was showing he wouldn't be PC ... no matter, in my mind the coloured kid was humiliated and it was used against him for weeks afterwards. Was Gibson racist ... who knows ... these were very different times ... but he wasn't naming his dog as a racial slur ... just a 1940's RAF-type's idea of a joke ... so I don't think changing the name to one that isn't a racial slur nowadays is such a harm ... you could say it was more artistically true to what Gibson was doing when he named the dog ... how about that for double think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ermo Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 What's the point of doing a film if its not going to be accurate? I'm mean we all loved the U571 story didn't we?? This time around are we going to have American crews flying specially modified B17's loaned to a desperate UK by GWB's Grandfather?? Just goes to show how 'History' is 'revised' to suit the politics of the day. TBH what's the feckin point... I'll stick the Black & White version... oh wait a minute shouldn't that be mono version... I mean I don't want to cause offence.... not that The Propagandaministerium (Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda) (or State Ministry for Public enlightenment and propaganda) would have bothered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Words are just things that we use in a clumsy attempt to pass information. Words are contextual. Not only within a sentence or a paragraph, but also within time. Once it was normal to refer to someone who was as being a bastard and it was a simple statement of fact that was by and large perfectly acceptable even ‘at the dinner table’. Today it would not be, or at least not in OUR house. In fact the word ‘bastard’ is a ‘swear’ word, an offensive term. So the word ‘nigger’ was once perfectly acceptable. We had Nigger Minstrel shows, we used the term ‘nigger black’ to denote dense black in clothing, a whole myriad of things. Fifty odd years ago I even had a CAT called nigger. It was pure white but that’s just me. if I had a zebra I’d probably call the dammned thing ‘Spot’ just to be perverse. So like it or lump it there’s a need to accept that words change and that now the word ‘nigger’ has joined the other once perfectly acceptable words that now carry a meaning far darker (deliberate pun) than they ever did in the past and it has joined the other words such as bastard, bloody (derived from ‘by my Lady’) spastic, queer, and even the ‘F’ word, again a word once in common polite use but now far from being so. From what I’ve read recently ‘asthma’ way soon join the list. It’s right that the word ‘nigger’ is dropped, what it conveys to people today is very different from what it conveyed sixty odd years ago. After all, what would you think of a man who called his dog ‘fu*kpig’? See what I mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.