Dam Busters dog renamed for movie remake
A tricky one, but I think the change is justifiable. As is pointed out, the film isn't about the dog...
Printable View
Dam Busters dog renamed for movie remake
A tricky one, but I think the change is justifiable. As is pointed out, the film isn't about the dog...
It's a shame the remake isn't being done in Hollywood.
Because that way Tom Cruise and Ben Afleck could lead a flight of B-17s on the mission to save all of Europe, capturing an enigma machine in the process. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies...very-happy.gif
All things considered... I think it is justifiable.. however I do think that a disclaimer should be put at the beginning of the film.
Personally I think its the bloody PC idiot brigade having an affect on history, the dog's name was..well we know what it was and to change it shows weakness and a disregard for historical fact. Why don't they just call the dog tinky winky and have done with it or might that offend some people also? The film might not be about the dog but where does it stop? you cant call the planes Lancasters as it might annoy the Yorkists (or any other major city dwellers in the UK)? jeez, I really despair sometimes!
Zooly, if you're worried about "disregard for historical fact", I think Hollywood has bigger problems than this.
To be honest it's damned if you do, damned if you don't (no pun intended).
The people who scream for historical accuracy will cry political correctness gone mad if you do change the dog's name and most people will cry racism if you don't.
I'm personally on the side of the latter, yes changing the dog's name isn't historically accurate but it is a small part and IMHO it is a change for the right reason.
The last thing anyone here wants to see is what I reckon will be a good film overshadowed by a race row, just because some purists wanted such an insignificant detail like Guy Gibson's dog's name unchanged.
Every film has inaccuracies, Saving Private Ryan had small historical inaccuracies, did those inaccuracies matter? In my opinion no, Saving Private Ryan was an excellent film, it had the right feel to it, it was realistic as to what went on and it didn't dishonour those that were there.
I think it will be the same with The Dambusters, the one tiny historical inaccuracy won't make a jot of difference.
Actually, SPR had enormous historical inaccuracies. It's still a good movie, though.Quote:
Originally posted by Warrington_Wolf:
Every film has inaccuracies, Saving Private Ryan had small historical inaccuracies,
Dumb thing to get upset about though I don't think the movie needs to be remade, WW2 aviation movies are not in vogue nowadays AT ALL so to get butts into seats I guarantee they'll try and tart it up and make it into a farce, I wouldn't be surprised if they made it into a Julia Roberts rom-com.
I am all for historical accuracy.. but in this case IMO the dog's name was a reflection of the ignorance of the times and to alienate an entire segment of a market.. for the sake of historical accuracy.. is just not smart. Times are different.. and I think that the negativity associated with the film had the name not been changed would not be worth the quest for accuracy.. To equate this with any other "suppose the ____ had been renamed ____ ... " scenario is to be blind and totally out of touch with the realities of today's society.. Even if the dog's name added something to the film... the point would be debatable.. but it doesn't... unless the men in the DB unit were just a bunch of ignorant, insensitive, overly sheltered racists at heart...Quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Zooly:
Personally I think its the bloody PC idiot brigade having an affect on history, the dog's name was..well we know what it was and to change it shows weakness and a disregard for historical fact. Why don't they just call the dog tinky winky and have done with it or might that offend some people also? The film might not be about the dog but where does it stop? you cant call the planes Lancasters as it might annoy the Yorkists (or any other major city dwellers in the UK)? jeez, I really despair sometimes!
I don't know enough about any of them to form an opinion on their character.. but ............
Should the Works of William Shakespeare be edited to suit modern sensibilities? Would people like some of the words or meanings he used to diluted/sanitised? The past should never be changed, it should be embraced no matter how inconvenient or politically incorrect or how will we know about the real people no matter how ignorant they might seem.
words change meaning with time
take it as a translation http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common...icon_smile.gif
I agree (although your comparison to Shakespeare is an invalid one, seeing as his works were fictional to begin with). One day all historical/war films will be banned, because they will offend someone, somewhere.Quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Zooly:
Should the Works of William Shakespeare be edited to suit modern sensibilities? Would people like some of the words or meanings he used to diluted/sanitised? The past should never be changed, it should be embraced no matter how inconvenient or politically incorrect or how will we know about the real people no matter how ignorant they might seem.
My point is that historical works either fact or fiction should not be changed to suit modern sensibilities.
I for one will not weep, wail or gnash my teeth over this one. The dog's name is a casual reference to the dispicable attitude held by most 'civilized' people at the time that some men are less worthy than others simply based on their skin color. At best, it is an illustration of the dangers of taking 'what everyone knows' for granted.
While Gibson was a fine man and worthy of emulation in most respects, his knack for naming the family pet is not one of them. It is better that it should be ignored rather than forgotten.
cheers
horseback
The interesting thing is that many of the words/meanings he used have been completely sanitized by the simple evolution of language. For example, even the title of "Much Ado About Nothing" is a (dirty) double entendre that is completely lost in modern English (look up what "nothing" was slang for in Shakespeare's time and then consider it in context of the play.)Quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Zooly:
Should the Works of William Shakespeare be edited to suit modern sensibilities? Would people like some of the words or meanings he used to diluted/sanitised?
I see no problem changing the name of the dog in an entertainment film. Films play fast and loose with the facts all of the time. They are not scholarly works, nor are they primarily made for accuracy.
If, however, history books start changing the dog's name in the interest of political correctness, then we have a problem.
I'd also like to point out something.
Stephen ******* Fry is writing the script. It's in very good hands. He's quite bright and about as anal as they come.
(Yes, that is a terrible pun, but I assure you that I did not intend it to be.)
The N word in the 1940's wasn't offensive. It was the word for black.
There was N shoe polish at the time in Britain.
But I'm surprised and hurt that Gibson would be portrayed as having a 'black dog'. The term 'black dog' is offensive.
The word 'have' is offensive. It implies ownership and domination.
And 'slavery' is offensive. For 10,000 years , slavery has been the 'norm'. Mankind has enslaved others for as long as mankind can remember. Even black folks were enslaved by black folks.
But praise be. Tony Blair. He who is White. Is the only human on the planet who has apologised for for being a slaver.Which he wasn't.
Guy Gibson's dog should be called Hitler. For that word is not offensive. And can be freely used.
Amen.
Best Regards,
MB_Avro.
A very bad comparison.. the works of Shakespeare compared to one minor non human character in a story about brave men and their deeds.. As I said.. I am all for historic accuracy.. but in this case i think they did the right thing..Quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Zooly:
Should the Works of William Shakespeare be edited to suit modern sensibilities? Would people like some of the words or meanings he used to diluted/sanitised? The past should never be changed, it should be embraced no matter how inconvenient or politically incorrect or how will we know about the real people no matter how ignorant they might seem.
Sorry to come across as the token "liberal" but i think you will find,that in the 1940's the word for Black was Black,****** had all sorts of conatations,even back then,a lot of them linked to the notion of the "British Empire" as a "civilizing" force for good.Quote:
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
The N word in the 1940's wasn't offensive. It was the word for black.
There was N shoe polish at the time in Britain.
But I'm surprised and hurt that Gibson would be portrayed as having a 'black dog'. The term 'black dog' is offensive.
The word 'have' is offensive. It implies ownership and domination.
And 'slavery' is offensive. For 10,000 years , slavery has been the 'norm'. Mankind has enslaved others for as long as mankind can remember. Even black folks were enslaved by black folks.
But praise be. Tony Blair. He who is White. Is the only human on the planet who has apologised for for being a slaver.Which he wasn't.
Guy Gibson's dog should be called Hitler. For that word is not offensive. And can be freely used.
Amen.
Best Regards,
MB_Avro.
I would rather see a new film about the "Dambusters"(which,lets face it,was the template for Star Wars http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies...very-happy.gif)Then get bogged down on "who called their dog what"
Err...Quote:
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
The N word in the 1940's wasn't offensive. It was the word for black.
You are a white guy from Britain from the year 2011.
That's an awfully arrogant statement. Also untrue. Particularly considering that it was the word employed by groups like the KKK as they murdered people. "******" is not a word that suddenly gained a negative connotation recently. It was a word used to dehumanize people from the start.
Though, as a Briton, you've clearly been insulated from this phenomenon--it all took place in your far-flung colonial possessions, after all.
Just for your education, the preferred word during the '40s was actually "colored." Even "negro" was considered relatively unoffensive. "******," however, was a slur.
And what was the black population at the time, exactly?Quote:
There was N shoe polish at the time in Britain.
Last I checked, even today the UK has fewer blacks in aggregate than some of the smaller US states. The status quo of 1940s Britain hardly serves as a sounding board for racial tensions on the other side of the ocean, which is precisely what Fry is concerned about.
I'm sorry to say, but this is the sort of nonsense I've come to expect from you. Don't you claim to be a grown man? Are you seriously defending the legitimacy of including a racial slur in a mass-market movie because a couple of limies that were completely insulated from the word's power decided to name a black dog using the word 70 years ago?Quote:
But I'm surprised and hurt that Gibson would be portrayed as having a 'black dog'. The term 'black dog' is offensive.
The word 'have' is offensive. It implies ownership and domination.
And 'slavery' is offensive. For 10,000 years , slavery has been the 'norm'. Mankind has enslaved others for as long as mankind can remember. Even black folks were enslaved by black folks.
But praise be. Tony Blair. He who is White. Is the only human on the planet who has apologised for for being a slaver.Which he wasn't.
Guy Gibson's dog should be called Hitler. For that word is not offensive. And can be freely used.
Amen.
Best Regards,
MB_Avro.
That's absurd.
I don't think you understand the history of that word. I rather doubt British schools focus as much on that particular chapter of the Empire's history as American ones do.
Actually, they could have just used the dog's nickname which I read somewhere was Niggles. Maybe some of the guys had problems calling the dog ****** or they just liked Niggles better.
The names and roles of minor characters are changed all the times in movies. They will combine the roles of 2 or 3 minor characters into one or vice versa. They are telling a story not recreating history exactly.
The original Dambusters movie had major inaccuracies, as do most "historical" movies.
I don't condone changing Shakespeare. However, a better example would have been Mark Twain. Twain actually had a character named ****** Jim in one of his greatest works. It should be left alone. It was a product of the time it was written and the name is central to the story. The name of the dog in the movie is meaningless. Heck, leave the dog out and it would barely alter the movie or story.
I actually agree with that 100% for a couple of simple reasons.Quote:
Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
I don't condone changing Shakespeare. However, a better example would have been Mark Twain. Twain actually had a character named ****** Jim in one of his greatest works. It should be left alone. It was a product of the time it was written and the name is central to the story. The name of the dog in the movie is meaningless. Heck, leave the dog out and it would barely alter the movie or story.
The first being:
Twain knew exactly what he was doing.
A British aircrew from the '40s most likely did not.
The second being, it was a 19th century literary work. That's worlds apart from a 21st century film.
Oh my how'd I miss this gem.. News flash... the term has ALWAYS been offensive to black folks.. at least within the last 150 years or so give or take a few decades.. Just because some moron decided to name a shoe polish with the word doesn't mean that it wasn't offensive .. It simply means that there were @holes in Britain back then.. just as there obviously are today... (like every where else I might add... )Quote:
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
The N word in the 1940's wasn't offensive. It was the word for black.
There was N shoe polish at the time in Britain.
But I'm surprised and hurt that Gibson would be portrayed as having a 'black dog'. The term 'black dog' is offensive.
The word 'have' is offensive. It implies ownership and domination.
And 'slavery' is offensive. For 10,000 years , slavery has been the 'norm'. Mankind has enslaved others for as long as mankind can remember. Even black folks were enslaved by black folks.
But praise be. Tony Blair. He who is White. Is the only human on the planet who has apologised for for being a slaver.Which he wasn't.
Guy Gibson's dog should be called Hitler. For that word is not offensive. And can be freely used.
Amen.
Best Regards,
MB_Avro.
I actually agree with that 100% for a couple of simple reasons.Quote:
Originally posted by GoToAway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
I don't condone changing Shakespeare. However, a better example would have been Mark Twain. Twain actually had a character named ****** Jim in one of his greatest works. It should be left alone. It was a product of the time it was written and the name is central to the story. The name of the dog in the movie is meaningless. Heck, leave the dog out and it would barely alter the movie or story.
The first being:
Twain knew exactly what he was doing.
A British aircrew from the '40s most likely did not.
The second being, it was a 19th century literary work. That's worlds apart from a 21st century film. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
... about a 20th century war..
I think there's a difference, BC.Quote:
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
... about a 20th century war..
Twain was trying to make a salient point with the character name.
The British aircrew was not.
I don't think that the dog's name should be censored from history, but in a movie...? The crew were not civil rights activists. They were a bunch of guys separated from the harm of that word by an ocean.
That's a different case than Twain.
Leave the dogs name alone, and change Gibson into an black rapper. Problem solved.
Oh my how'd I miss this gem.. News flash... the term has ALWAYS been offensive to black folks.. at least within the last 150 years or so give or take a few decades.. Just because some moron decided to name a shoe polish with the word doesn't mean that it wasn't offensive .. It simply means that there were @holes in Britain back then.. just as there obviously are today... (like every where else I might add... )Quote:
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
The N word in the 1940's wasn't offensive. It was the word for black.
There was N shoe polish at the time in Britain.
But I'm surprised and hurt that Gibson would be portrayed as having a 'black dog'. The term 'black dog' is offensive.
The word 'have' is offensive. It implies ownership and domination.
And 'slavery' is offensive. For 10,000 years , slavery has been the 'norm'. Mankind has enslaved others for as long as mankind can remember. Even black folks were enslaved by black folks.
But praise be. Tony Blair. He who is White. Is the only human on the planet who has apologised for for being a slaver.Which he wasn't.
Guy Gibson's dog should be called Hitler. For that word is not offensive. And can be freely used.
Amen.
Best Regards,
MB_Avro.
I actually agree with that 100% for a couple of simple reasons.Quote:
Originally posted by GoToAway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
I don't condone changing Shakespeare. However, a better example would have been Mark Twain. Twain actually had a character named ****** Jim in one of his greatest works. It should be left alone. It was a product of the time it was written and the name is central to the story. The name of the dog in the movie is meaningless. Heck, leave the dog out and it would barely alter the movie or story.
The first being:
Twain knew exactly what he was doing.
A British aircrew from the '40s most likely did not.
The second being, it was a 19th century literary work. That's worlds apart from a 21st century film. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
... about a 20th century war.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'd just leave it at the world was just a different place in those days.
However at the end of the day, while it does offend some it is only a word. I believe the only reason for it's removal is not simply because it's a word that offends (plenty of movies have offensive words in them), but because the movie is probably going to be after American sales.
There is a wider culture gap between the UK/Commonwealth and the US than we realise, and unfortuantly leaving the dog's name from the movie is the only way to appease both audiences.
I wish I could say that I was surprised by this. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gifQuote:
Originally posted by Cajun76:
Leave the dogs name alone, and change Gibson into an black rapper. Problem solved.
Tell it like it is, BC. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies...very-happy.gifQuote:
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
It simply means that there were @holes in Britain back then.. just as there obviously are today...
Why not have someone ask the Gibson character:
"Where's your dog?"
Gibson: "He's at the vet"
Don't talk about the mutt for the rest of the film.
Problem solved http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common.../icon_wink.gif
I think there's a difference, BC.Quote:
Originally posted by GoToAway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
... about a 20th century war..
Twain was trying to make a salient point with the character name.
The British aircrew was not.
I don't think that the dog's name should be censored from history, but in a movie...? The crew were not civil rights activists. They were a bunch of guys separated from the harm of that word by an ocean.
That's a different case than Twain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes but it is different in that in 19th century America.. that was how it was.. It would be like trying to tell the story of The Tuskegee Airmen and leaving that word out.. or the racism out.. it is an integral part of the story.. this is different. In this very war that is the background for the film many of the men who fought in it on the side of the allies came home to basically a NNNA attitude by the home front.. I don't think the dog's name should be censored from history either.. but from the movie yes.. and you know.. considering the way that Britain had colonized people of color through out the world.. and the effects of that colonization on the native Brits.. as far as their own insensitivity to what it was doing to the colonized, I can't say that I can wholly blame the pilots.. they were all young men.. but people know right from wrong.. and the fact that that name was a derogatory term for black folks was very much known by all of them. They just didn't care.. it wasn't important to them.. (ignorance has never been a crime.. ) otherwise they would have named the dog Blackie, or Midnight, or anything other than what they named him.
They changed the name of a dog - histoy will never be the same!
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common...n_rolleyes.gif
Tard isn't an offense - it's just the 21st century's word for Avro...Quote:
The N word in the 1940's wasn't offensive. It was the word for black.
I can't wait till all the oil runs out, and people have proper things to argue about.
Quote:
The N word in the 1940's wasn't offensive. It was the word for black.
Yup. Many still use that excuse today...
Quote:
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
They changed the name of a dog - histoy will never be the same!
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common...n_rolleyes.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The N word in the 1940's wasn't offensive. It was the word for black.
Tard isn't an offense - it's just the 21st century's word for Avro... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why do you get away with your attacks on me?
Is your Dad the boss of ubi?
Avro, what you wrote was both ignorant and offensive. I suggest that you delete your posts, rather than claiming innocence.
Are you saying that Guy Gibson was ignorant and offensive? He named his dog N because it was Black. No other reason.Quote:
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
Avro, what you wrote was both ignorant and offensive. I suggest that you delete your posts, rather than claiming innocence.
You and Bearcat and a few others here should take a reality check. Stop drowning in self righteous pompous indignation and face the facts that Britain in 1943 wasn't a racist cess-pit.
I'm standing up for Gibson. He lost his young and talented life fighting a Nazi German organisation that would have exterminated blacks.
Give it some thought. That's all I ask.
And try not to be an internet bully-gang http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
Best Regards,
MB_Stand_For_What's_Right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common.../icon_wink.gif
He called his dog "N" because it was black?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
Avro, I'm not arguing with Guy Gibson, I'm arguing with you, for what you wrote:
Nobody has 'portrayed' Gibson as anything - they have given his dog a different name in a Hollywood film.Quote:
The N word in the 1940's wasn't offensive. It was the word for black.
There was N shoe polish at the time in Britain.
But I'm surprised and hurt that Gibson would be portrayed as having a 'black dog'. The term 'black dog' is offensive.
The word 'have' is offensive. It implies ownership and domination.
And 'slavery' is offensive. For 10,000 years , slavery has been the 'norm'. Mankind has enslaved others for as long as mankind can remember. Even black folks were enslaved by black folks.
But praise be. Tony Blair. He who is White. Is the only human on the planet who has apologised for for being a slaver.Which he wasn't.
Guy Gibson's dog should be called Hitler. For that word is not offensive. And can be freely used.
Amen.
Best Regards,
MB_Avro.
You were clearly being provocative, but then this seems to be your style. You go out of your way to provoke people, and then claim to be the 'victim'. Frankly, I think this forum would be a better place without you.
No, I'm the Dad of the boss of ubi!Quote:
Is your Dad the boss of ubi?
Andy, word!
Nobody has 'portrayed' Gibson as anything - they have given his dog a different name in a Hollywood film.Quote:
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
Avro, I'm not arguing with Guy Gibson, I'm arguing with you, for what you wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The N word in the 1940's wasn't offensive. It was the word for black.
There was N shoe polish at the time in Britain.
But I'm surprised and hurt that Gibson would be portrayed as having a 'black dog'. The term 'black dog' is offensive.
The word 'have' is offensive. It implies ownership and domination.
And 'slavery' is offensive. For 10,000 years , slavery has been the 'norm'. Mankind has enslaved others for as long as mankind can remember. Even black folks were enslaved by black folks.
But praise be. Tony Blair. He who is White. Is the only human on the planet who has apologised for for being a slaver.Which he wasn't.
Guy Gibson's dog should be called Hitler. For that word is not offensive. And can be freely used.
Amen.
Best Regards,
MB_Avro.
You were clearly being provocative, but then this seems to be your style. You go out of your way to provoke people, and then claim to be the 'victim'. Frankly, I think this forum would be a better place without you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Trying to get me banned are you?
Just because you can't respond effectively?
You are a self-proclaimed Marxist. We will never get on.
But I would never suggest that the forum would be better without you.
That's the difference between us. I like debate but you seek to stifle it.
Best Regards,
MB_Stifle.