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.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... )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.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.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.
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... )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.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 think there's a difference, BC.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.