The Dambusters being re-made.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

yello

back and brave
Location
France
Did you say 'mmmm'? Are you perhaps suggesting a sensitivity over dogs being eaten? You are of course right to consider the effect this film might have on animal lovers. :shy:
 

Fab Foodie

hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
Location
Kirton, Devon.
yello said:
Did you say 'mmmm'? Are you perhaps suggesting a sensitivity over dogs being eaten? You are of course right to consider the effect this film might have on animal lovers. :shy:

A dog's not just for hristmas... they're also great for the BBQ season!
 

yello

back and brave
Location
France
Indeed. I'm just pickling one now and damn me if his face don't look so cute peering out of the jar.
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
Andy in Sig said:
You mean that you reckon that the telly wouldn't show things like In The Heat Of The Night or that film with Kiefer Sutherland where he plays a redneck who rapes and murders a little black girl?

heat of the night portrays virgil tibbs +vely whereas mammy two shoes was/is seenas a -ve if accurate stereotype and i've no idea what film you are talking about in the second example.

uk broadcasters often delete elements of soundtracks, or selectively (damn forgotten the technical term) crop the image or just delete scenes they beleive to be too offensive. or they simply broadcast the version originally distributed for pre-apartied south africa or the gulf. they decide what we can view not us
 

Wigsie

Nincompoop
Location
Kent
Chuffy said:
If you think that the two things are within a million miles of being comparable then there’s not much point trying to argue…

Oh by the way, I bet that 99% of the real characters smoked. Bet you won't see a single fag in the film....
When will these film-making fools stop lying to us? ;)

Your right, there is no point arguing (you seem to have done plenty of that with many others on here). I am giving my opinion and you are entitled to yours, whether we see eye to eye is insignificant.

I like to think that a few film makers have pushed the boundaries a bit in the last few decades and all the characters won't have neatly pressed uniforms, slickly brylcreamed hair, swish moustache's, cleanly shaven and cheering "chocks away" every other sentence.

I do hope your wrong about smoking/the smaller details and Peter Jackson makes it a bit grittier and true to life.

It has been said in this post but I also find it interesting that so many people are 'fighting' for the rights on behalf of those that are apparently going to be offended, I dont approve of racist/homophobic etc attitudes but each and every person is entitled to their own views as long as their actions dont actually harm anyone.
 

Andy in Sig

Vice President in Exile
yello said:
[devil's advocate mode]

What happens if their version of history is factually incorrect (for whatever reason)? Are we not allowed to correct it?

We know, for instance, that the film makers of this new film have access to (now de-classified) information, info not available to the previous film makers. If this info actually contradicts the previously held view, can this not be used?

I mean, what happens if the dog's name was actually Fido? ;)

Accounts of history are constantly updated as new facts come to light. I should imagine that nobody sees any difficulty with that.
 

Mr Pig

New Member
Wigsie said:
I'd like to think that all the characters won't have neatly pressed uniforms, slickly brylcreemed hair, swish moustache's, cleanly shaven and cheering "chocks away" every other sentence.

Not even if they were actually like that? ;0)
 
Top Bottom