There is nothing wrong with my response - you were tying to stir up trouble, and I said so, This is all the 'response' your comments deserve.
Given your politics, and your general obnoxiousness, I have no wish to 'get on' with you.
As for 'debate', I've never seen you take part in one: you just repeat the same endless blather, and then come over all hurt when people don't agree with you.
And if I was trying to 'stifle debate' on this topic, why would I start a thread on it?
jerry bruckheimer isnt directing thisOriginally posted by Ba5tard5word:
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.
the main push for the project is the said director. hes the sort of guy to get an accurate replica of a WW1 tank made for his own enjoyment
Agreed!Originally posted by Warrington_Wolf:
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.
But all this aside, is this movie a for sure thing? I had heard rumor of it being in the works a couple years ago and then that he had given up. The Lord of the Rings movies weren't my cup of tea, but from a visual perspective with the computer generated stuff they were quite stunning. I also hear he is quite a history buff.![]()
Self righteous pompous indignation? ... and you say I need a reality check?Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
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.
Please... you need to take your own advice... You make a STUPID statement like this....
and you don't expect to be called on it? That is just delusional.. Times have not changed that much. No one ever said or insinuated that Britain in 1943 was a "racist cesspit" , or that is today for that matter, but to suggest that racism was less prevalent there or anywhere else in the west than it is today.... is denying the facts. It is also a side debate.. It is a movie about WWII pilots.. not about racsm in Britain in 1943.. for crying out loud.. and the name is the name of a friggin DOG.. a minor character.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.
In my opinion the director did the right thing to change the name of the dog. The negativity associated with the film by not doing so for the sake of "historical accuracy" in this instance would have not been worth it. You may not agree... that is your choice.. I am out of this conversation.. I said my piece.. You can continue your same line of reasoning if you like..
Does any of the folks here on the forum know what the original title of this 1939 Agatha Christie novel was before it got changed to this one?
And Then There Were None
Some excerpts from the article:
And Then There Were None is a detective fiction novel by Agatha Christie, first published in the United Kingdom by the Collins Crime Club on 6 November 1939 under the title Ten Little ******s which was changed by Dodd, Mead and Company in January 1940 because of the presence of a racial epithet to the title And Then There Were None.
The novel was originally published in Britain under the title Ten Little ******s in 1939. All references to "Indian" in the US version of the story were originally "******": thus the island was called "****** Island" rather than "Indian Island" and the rhyme found by each murder victim was also called Ten Little ******s rather than Ten Little Indians. Modern printings use the rhyme Ten Little Indians and "Indian Island" for reasons of political and ethnic sensitivity.
British editions continued to use the work's original title until the 1980s and the first British edition to use the alternative title And Then There Were None appeared in 1985 with a reprint of the 1963 Fontana Paperback.
I don't know if the article is entirely accurate or not, but I do recall seeing the book title in the library when I was a kid.![]()
http://www.amazon.com/N-word-N...Conrad/dp/9076660115Does any of the folks here on the forum know what the original title of this 1939 Agatha Christie novel was before it got changed to this one?
And Then There Were None
I don't mind if they changed the name of the dog though. There would be a big reaction if they left it. However, I don't understand why the dog is of such importance in the first place.
Skipping to the issue at hand (off topic a moment), the name of the dog, the word in question was NEVER used as a common term for those black. That word would of been "Negro" which is even frowned upon today. The other word ALWAYS held disparaging meaning, both insulting and demeaning and that holds true throughout the world, including Britain.
On topic however I'm of two minds....The first being I can personally understand how racist terms and remarks even those not directed at you still bring up bad feelings. Being a "half-breed" native american, I've experienced first hand extreme racism from not just caucasians, yet black, hispanic, and in travelling the world virtually every nationality as I was either considered white in non white regions, or considered even less then white being of mixed blood. More so, Native Americans consider me less than....So in the end I ended up feeling like a race of 1. Hence all the ethnic slurrs even those of "breed/half breed" when used about someone totally detached from me still brings up bad memories and feelings.
So frankly I can see changing the name as the movie is not there to hurt folks, yet inform as to history. More so in that the derogatory term is still used today throughout the world...So it's not simply a matter of old wounds yet for many those still fresh.
That said, I like history as blunt and hnest as it was. I think it's important to see the bad of the past to improve upon the future....However be sure, the dog was named such as a crude and vulgar joke and most likely only done so in that those that named it were being racist.
So, would you like the movie to be brutally honest, showing them as a bunch of vulgar racists bombing a dam and in the process hurt a bunch of the audience.....OR.....Change the name of the dog and tell of dam busting.
Doesn't matter if that was a term many people used back then....In those days racism and cruelty to others was acceptable and wrong. Why folks fight to change it.
K2
I wish I could say that I was surprised by this.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 Cajun76:
Leave the dogs name alone, and change Gibson into an black rapper. Problem solved.</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm surprised you didn't get Cajun's drift, GTA. While we wring our hands over a dog's name in a movie, rappers are using the word over and over again without mention.
That said, whatever. It doesn't bother me to see people in their context. Makes for a richer experience.