The Dambusters being re-made.

[Mr Pig]

I think that most people are smart enough to realise that the word nigger had different connotations back then and it was not used in the same way as it would be today. And if they aren't who cares what they think?

You're treading on dangerous ground when you start altering history. I think it's better to give people the facts and let them work it out rather than try to interpret things in whatever light you personally approve of. Think of all the life stories you've seen translated into film that were clearly jaundiced and unrealistic. Usually the character in question is portrayed as being practically perfect and loved by everyone who knew them. It diminishes the film tremendously because you know that there's no way the reality was like that.

I don't know if the guy was racist, the word was never meant that way or maybe just had a slightly sick sense of humour. But tell people the truth and let them decide for themselves. The experience will be richer for it.

 

[Chuffy]

You're treading on dangerous ground when you start altering history.

It's the name of a dog. A tiny detail added to the story because it gave a bit more human interest. Please spare me the pompous tripe about 'altering history'.

 

[PaulB]

Not that I said Gibson was racist (I have no idea) but I think it is fair to say that the brave can also be racist.

As a side note, though related to the issue at hand, there were strong rumours of Gibson's racism that emerged recently. The thing is, it wasn't GUY Gibson but MEL Gibson, who owned the film rights but gave them up when he realised he lacked the time and resources to make the film himself.

 

[Andy in Sig]

It's the name of a dog. A tiny detail added to the story because it gave a bit more human interest. Please spare me the pompous tripe about 'altering history'.

Come on Chuffy, it's not like you to lose the plot. The dog's name was not "added" to the story for the sake of "human interest". It is a historical fact, in itself a trivial one but the fact that the dog's name was chosen as the codeword for the breaching of the first dam makes it relevant to the story.

 

[dellzeqq]

Makes sense. It's not as if the dog is instrumental to the story (unless Disney are funding the movie! In which case, he'll probably fly the plane!).

very funny! Thankyou!

 

[got-to-get-fit]

whats the bet's that Tom Cruise is going to play the lead.

The british actors will probably all play germans

 

[Chuffy]

Come on Chuffy, it's not like you to lose the plot.

I'm not the one getting stroppy because the name of a dog might be changed...

The dog's name was not "added" to the story for the sake of "human interest". It is a historical fact, in itself a trivial one but the fact that the dog's name was chosen as the codeword for the breaching of the first dam makes it relevant to the story.

You're confusing 'story' with 'historical record'. The dog's name could easily have been omitted by Paul Brickhill, it's of no consequence to the events. It was included to add (and excuse the dreadful irony) 'colour' to the story. The real point, which you've helpfully made, is that the code word was chosen as a tribute to Gibson's dog. That's the bit that matters, not the name itself.

 

[Andy in Sig]

I'm sure there are loads of things which Paul Brickhill could have omitted but if he was choosing to relate as complete a history as possible, he would have been silly to leave anything out. It was not included to add "colour" to the story: it was rather the reporting of a fact. There is nothing fictional about this. Anyway the fact that the word "nigger" in the usual context has come to be regarded as being highly offensive nowadays (and I have no argument with that) should have no bearing on it being depicted in it being used in a wholly different context when reporting on historical events.

Incidentally, I'm not aware of anybody who is black getting upset about this. I do however suspect that most of the protest is coming from white people who want to get offended on behalf of black people.

PS I'm not getting remotely stroppy but I am baffled as to why anybody could object to the depiction of historical fact. We don't shy from viewing films about the US deep south which show historical (even contemporary) scenes where the way in which the word is used is quite sickening - and we shouldn't shy away from that if we want to address matters of fact.

 

[Unkraut]

.... is that the code word was chosen as a tribute to Gibson's dog. That's the bit that matters, not the name itself.

If the name doesn't matter, why the fuss?

The answer is of course that this reflects the hang-ups of modern society (I daren't use the term political correctness, or this will end up in P+L!). I appreciate it was for a very long time a derogatory term of abuse, but that does not mean that it is so used in the actual history of the raid, and certainly shouldn't be changed to make history acceptable. If you make an historical film, you have to reflect the times back then if you intend to be accurate. Othewise, the re-make should have a female CO to reflect modern concepts of equality.

I am now going to retire to the underground bunker .....

 

[Chuffy]

If the name doesn't matter, why the fuss?

<blows raspberry>

There are valid arguments to be made either way. What confuses me is the way that the mere possibility of a name change gets people all hot under the collar and blustering rubbish about 're-writing history'. Lets be quite clear, changing the name makes no difference to the story. We're not even remotely close to U-571 territory here.
This re-make has been around for a while now and the thing that seems to recur in any discussion is "I hope they don't change the name of the dog"....

 

[Wigsie]

Ha ha I am enjoying reading this thread now, getting quite interesting gauging peoples views of whether the name of a dog should be changed.

IMO I guess its a little like films set in Apartheid, do they change the word kaffa to save offending someone when it just in conversation? no... they write the script for authenticity and the person may or may not have even said it? If something actually happened and you are documenting this within a feature film or whatever then you should recreate it as it happened.

I think whether they change it or not it will depend massively on the target audience pre production. If the investors want it to be a full on summer family block buster then they will take it out or change it to nigsy to get a PG or 12a rating. But if they are going to aim it at the older generation eg a "Last King of Scotland" type of drama/thriller/action with a rating of 15 then they will keep it in.

 

[Unkraut]

<blows raspberry>

I heard through 3 metre thick reinforced concrete .....

It is the rewriting of history that is the problem here. If the use of the offending word really would be grossly offensive, I suppose you could omit it, but it is dubious whether this is the case.

Anyway, if we are out to avoid the use of bad language, shouldn't the film be re-named The Water Reservoir Busters?

 

[Chuffy]

IMO I guess its a little like films set in Apartheid, do they change the word kaffa to save offending someone when it just in conversation? no... they write the script for authenticity and the person may or may not have even said it? If something actually happened and you are documenting this within a feature film or whatever then you should recreate it as it happened.

There's no valid comparison to be made with this case. A film set in apartheid era South Africa would revolve around the word 'kaffir' (plus a host of other equally unpleasant words) and the way that the characters used them to and about each other.

 

[Black Sheep]

As a side note, though related to the issue at hand, there were strong rumours of Gibson's racism that emerged recently. The thing is, it wasn't GUY Gibson but MEL Gibson, who owned the film rights but gave them up when he realised he lacked the time and resources to make the film himself.

well, that just makes it more confusing, i'm assuming that we've been talking about guy gibson, the first leader of 617

 

[Wigsie]

There's no valid comparison to be made with this case. A film set in apartheid era South Africa would revolve around the word 'kaffir' (plus a host of other equally unpleasant words) and the way that the characters used them to and about each other.

I disagree, its FACT that they used those words and they still do although it is less acceptable. Then, the N word was far more acceptable than it is now although I am sure it is still used and is not frowned upon too much in certain groups within the military (especially those that are in active war scenario's). The fact is it was the dogs name and it was consequently used as the confirmation codeword on the first dam. A dogs name is minor and meaningless to many (and perhaps myself to a certain degree) but to a significant number of people it is important to remember the facts and the codename of the first successful run is actually pretty important.

It is not an acceptable name nowadays and I dont think anyone would argue the point. If it was a remake of a fictional movie there would not be this discussion.