The Dambusters being re-made.

[Chuffy]

People of that wartime generation get upset because it's their history and we shoud all get upset because it is a part of our collective bigger history and utimately it is immaturity which leads people to think that modern people are incapable of dealing with a now offensive word which was used innocently in those times. We have no right to play with their history.

Is that Land Of Hope And Glory I can hear playing in the background?

Calm down dear, it's only a dog's name.....

 

[Fab Foodie]

Calm down dear, it's only a dog's name.....

Yup, you said it...

 

[just jim]

Who's up for directing it?

Give it to Bay.

 

[Andy in Sig]

Is that Land Of Hope And Glory I can hear playing in the background?

Calm down dear, it's only a dog's name.....

No it's just a sign of respect for people who've been through more than you or I could ever imagine or are ever likely to experience in our pampered life times.

 

[Wigsie]

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

 

[yello]

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

I agree. But, and forgive me if I misunderstand you, it seems to contradict your previous statement.

We have no right to play with their history.

 

[Unkraut]

Re-making the film so as to include new information is one thing, and good, as it increases the historical accuracy of the film. Including some reference to the loss of civlilian life might not be bad to balance up the new film in comparison to the original version, which really only concentrated on the British losses (I bought said film on my last holiday in Britain, so it is fresh in my memory). Changing the name of the dog is to make it less authentic, and I still think unnecessary.
Could any future posts on this topic please refrain from making reference to Brylcream, as the very thought is making me feel queasy. Thank you.

 

[Mr Pig]

it seems to contradict your previous statement.

There is a difference between improving accuracy as more facts come to light and deliberately changing facts which are known to be correct.

 

[Mr Pig]

please refrain from making reference to Brylcream, as the very thought is making me feel queasy.

You're not supposed to eat it you know?

 

[yello]

There is a difference between improving accuracy as more facts come to light and deliberately changing facts which are known to be correct.

There's an inherent contradiction there though isn't there? What we thought to be correct may be seen, in time, to not be so. Or vice versa.

I'm still talking generally btw and not about any damned dog!

 

[Unkraut]

I'm still talking generally btw and not about any damned dog!

Damned dog is very appropriate in the context, however.

I have a suggestion. Couldn't the dog be renamed Ginger, as it uses the same historical letters of the dog's name, but in a different order?

 

[Wigsie]

Damned dog is very appropriate in the context, however.

I have a suggestion. Couldn't the dog be renamed Ginger, as it uses the same historical letters of the dog's name, but in a different order?

Your joking surely? There's a Ginge in our office and whenever we take the piss say something offensive by mistake he goes mental!

You would have a worldwide uproar of rebelious gingers....

 

[Andy in Sig]

I agree. But, and forgive me if I misunderstand you, it seems to contradict your previous statement.

I think you might be misunderstanding me slightly. Historical facts are simply that. One bases views of history on them and people who were present at a historical event will base their recollections on what they actually experienced, something which could easily mean they miss the big picture or wider significance. However, once new facts come to light (and this seems to happen all the time) it makes sense to change one's view if the facts demand that.

In the particular matter of the dog's name, it is unlikely that the fact has been got wrong and so the people involved will understandably get irate about a clear fact being altered/ignored/misrepresented as it is part of their and our history. Therefore while it seems reasonable to add facts which have since been declassified and released, which enhance the telling of the story, it seems much less justifiable (not at all IMO) to alter a fact simply because attitudes have changed.

 

[Wigsie]

Hardly a valid comparison is it? Pissing people with ginger hair off is like shooting fish in a barrel.

You mean sounds like it could be a bit of a laugh and is incredibly easy?

Yesterday Ginger Alex was off so we sprayed his tetley tea monkey ginger.

 

[Mr Pig]

I think you might be misunderstanding me slightly. Historical facts are simply that. One bases views of history on them and people who were present at a historical event will base their recollections on what they actually experienced, something which could easily mean they miss the big picture or wider significance. However, once new facts come to light (and this seems to happen all the time) it makes sense to change one's view if the facts demand that.

In the particular matter of the dog's name, it is unlikely that the fact has been got wrong and so the people involved will understandably get irate about a clear fact being altered/ignored/misrepresented as it is part of their and our history. Therefore while it seems reasonable to add facts which have since been declassified and released, which enhance the telling of the story, it seems much less justifiable (not at all IMO) to alter a fact simply because attitudes have changed.

Why use one sentence when two paragraphs will do eh? ;0)

Wasting your time by the way...