Dambusters film
Discussion
FourWheelDrift said:
Lancaster sections arriving 2016 - http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2016/06/avro-lanca...
Looking good.My Grandad flew in Lancs in WW2 and I've always had a fondness for the story of 617 Squadron. I bought the DVD a couple of years ago, having not watched the movie for maybe 20 years, and I have to say I found it a little shocking to hear the N word used so casually. I'm someone who swears like a trooper but that word is not one that I could ever use and just because it was in common parlance in the 1940's doesn't make it any less derogatory. IMHO
Just to lighten the mood here's a pic of the last 2 airworthy Lancs flying at Goodwood in 2014. My son in law is an RAF officer and was head of security at Coningsby at the time and I was over in the U.K. He was able to get me up close to them in the hangar. I doubt we'll ever see them fly together again.
bad company said:
If you go to RAF Scampton you can visit N*****'s grave. It pees me off that we can no longer use the N word, this is real history.
Its not freal hisiory, though, is it?? The Dog didnt design the bomb. It didnt fly the plane. It didnt breach the dams in any way. In Paul Brickhill's book (and inm Gibson's book) the Dog is mentionned but no more. The film has the dog in as, I think they wanted to show Gibson as a man alone with a Dog, rather then a husband he actually was...Showing the film inevitably means those who like to can say the "word" and then say "its in the film. Its historic Im not being racist but...." and, as Eric says everything else about the film and the mission becomes inconsequential.
If peter jackson ever made the film again, he could omit the dog entirely. It has nothing to do with the mission. It wouldnt be "PC gone mad" as the Dog isnt anything. Its the same reason why they omitted to tell us what Gibson had for breakfast, the car he drove, the pants he wore: its not part of the story...
williamp said:
Its not freal hisiory, though, is it?? The Dog didnt design the bomb. It didnt fly the plane. It didnt breach the dams in any way. In Paul Brickhill's book (and inm Gibson's book) the Dog is mentionned but no more. The film has the dog in as, I think they wanted to show Gibson as a man alone with a Dog, rather then a husband he actually was...
Showing the film inevitably means those who like to can say the "word" and then say "its in the film. Its historic Im not being racist but...." and, as Eric says everything else about the film and the mission becomes inconsequential.
If peter jackson ever made the film again, he could omit the dog entirely. It has nothing to do with the mission. It wouldnt be "PC gone mad" as the Dog isnt anything. Its the same reason why they omitted to tell us what Gibson had for breakfast, the car he drove, the pants he wore: its not part of the story...
The point about the dog in the film was that after it was killed in a road accident shortly before the raid. Guy Gibson asked for it to be buried that night at about the time he'd be hitting the dams. Perhaps he thought he'd be in a hole in the ground about then.Showing the film inevitably means those who like to can say the "word" and then say "its in the film. Its historic Im not being racist but...." and, as Eric says everything else about the film and the mission becomes inconsequential.
If peter jackson ever made the film again, he could omit the dog entirely. It has nothing to do with the mission. It wouldnt be "PC gone mad" as the Dog isnt anything. Its the same reason why they omitted to tell us what Gibson had for breakfast, the car he drove, the pants he wore: its not part of the story...
Not sure if that happened for real, but if it did it's worth keeping in. And changing the name of the dog would be more distracting than keeping it.
Also, the word wasn't derogatory then in that context, after all in certain contexts it isn't even now.
There must have been some black airmen at Scampton, is there any record of what they thought about it?
bad company said:
If you go to RAF Scampton you can visit N*****'s grave. It pees me off that we can no longer use the N word, this is real history.
This is also a total bloody fallacy. The word can be used if it is historically relevant and the context justifies it. Like a dog's name - if he was called that, he was called that. It's why the film went out unedited on a Sunday afternoon.Why - what context do you need it for?
Or are you just after something to be outraged about?
Also what is 'real history' - I think you are using that as a substitute for 'what I like' - and that's fine. It is real history. But just because you aren't interested it doesn't make other history 'not real'.
This is a question I asked myself with people saying Les Munro should have got a gong.
Preciesly why has the Dams raid entered our consciousness so? I am sure the film must have contributed to it.
Or is it because it's like a story of daring do straight out of the Eagle - so appeals to the adventurous side of it all?
Preciesly why has the Dams raid entered our consciousness so? I am sure the film must have contributed to it.
Or is it because it's like a story of daring do straight out of the Eagle - so appeals to the adventurous side of it all?
williamp said:
bad company said:
If you go to RAF Scampton you can visit N*****'s grave. It pees me off that we can no longer use the N word, this is real history.
Its not freal hisiory, though, is it?? The Dog didnt design the bomb. It didnt fly the plane. It didnt breach the dams in any way. In Paul Brickhill's book (and inm Gibson's book) the Dog is mentionned but no more. The film has the dog in as, I think they wanted to show Gibson as a man alone with a Dog, rather then a husband he actually was...Showing the film inevitably means those who like to can say the "word" and then say "its in the film. Its historic Im not being racist but...." and, as Eric says everything else about the film and the mission becomes inconsequential.
If peter jackson ever made the film again, he could omit the dog entirely. It has nothing to do with the mission. It wouldnt be "PC gone mad" as the Dog isnt anything. Its the same reason why they omitted to tell us what Gibson had for breakfast, the car he drove, the pants he wore: its not part of the story...
Starring Ryan Gosling as Guy Gibson and Jeff Goldblum as Barnes Wallis; cameo from Alec Baldwin as Bomber Harris and Michael Caine as Hermann Goering.
Vocal Minority said:
This is also a total bloody fallacy. The word can be used if it is historically relevant and the context justifies it. Like a dog's name - if he was called that, he was called that. It's why the film went out unedited on a Sunday afternoon.
Why - what context do you need it for?
Or are you just after something to be outraged about?
Also what is 'real history' - I think you are using that as a substitute for 'what I like' - and that's fine. It is real history. But just because you aren't interested it doesn't make other history 'not real'.
I seem to have rattled your cage this morning.Why - what context do you need it for?
Or are you just after something to be outraged about?
Also what is 'real history' - I think you are using that as a substitute for 'what I like' - and that's fine. It is real history. But just because you aren't interested it doesn't make other history 'not real'.
Years ago
was a colour, you could buy brown paint and it was not an unusual name for a dog. I think the word was always derogatory in the USA and that spread over here.It's how you use words really IMO. For example why is it ok to refer to a Scot as short for Scottish but not P**i as short for Pakistani?
williamp said:
bad company said:
If you go to RAF Scampton you can visit N*****'s grave. It pees me off that we can no longer use the N word, this is real history.
Its not freal hisiory, though, is it?? The Dog didnt design the bomb. It didnt fly the plane. It didnt breach the dams in any way. In Paul Brickhill's book (and inm Gibson's book) the Dog is mentionned but no more. The film has the dog in as, I think they wanted to show Gibson as a man alone with a Dog, rather then a husband he actually was...Showing the film inevitably means those who like to can say the "word" and then say "its in the film. Its historic Im not being racist but...." and, as Eric says everything else about the film and the mission becomes inconsequential.
If peter jackson ever made the film again, he could omit the dog entirely. It has nothing to do with the mission. It wouldnt be "PC gone mad" as the Dog isnt anything. Its the same reason why they omitted to tell us what Gibson had for breakfast, the car he drove, the pants he wore: its not part of the story...
I would like to imagine that even back when the film was made they knew the word was key. As such the introduction of the dog and its' scenes are purely so the joyful shout of 'It's
, sir' is put into context. They could, of course, have changed the code word for success and would have been the obvious solution for a remake.Dr Jekyll said:
The point about the dog in the film was that after it was killed in a road accident shortly before the raid. Guy Gibson asked for it to be buried that night at about the time he'd be hitting the dams. Perhaps he thought he'd be in a hole in the ground about then.
Not sure if that happened for real, but if it did it's worth keeping in. And changing the name of the dog would be more distracting than keeping it.
Also, the word wasn't derogatory then in that context, after all in certain contexts it isn't even now.
There must have been some black airmen at Scampton, is there any record of what they thought about it?
Black airmen at Scampton during WW2? I doubt it. Seems unlikely in the extreme although I'd like to be proved wrong. Not sure if that happened for real, but if it did it's worth keeping in. And changing the name of the dog would be more distracting than keeping it.
Also, the word wasn't derogatory then in that context, after all in certain contexts it isn't even now.
There must have been some black airmen at Scampton, is there any record of what they thought about it?
Voldemort said:
williamp said:
bad company said:
If you go to RAF Scampton you can visit N*****'s grave. It pees me off that we can no longer use the N word, this is real history.
Its not freal hisiory, though, is it?? The Dog didnt design the bomb. It didnt fly the plane. It didnt breach the dams in any way. In Paul Brickhill's book (and inm Gibson's book) the Dog is mentionned but no more. The film has the dog in as, I think they wanted to show Gibson as a man alone with a Dog, rather then a husband he actually was...Showing the film inevitably means those who like to can say the "word" and then say "its in the film. Its historic Im not being racist but...." and, as Eric says everything else about the film and the mission becomes inconsequential.
If peter jackson ever made the film again, he could omit the dog entirely. It has nothing to do with the mission. It wouldnt be "PC gone mad" as the Dog isnt anything. Its the same reason why they omitted to tell us what Gibson had for breakfast, the car he drove, the pants he wore: its not part of the story...
I would like to imagine that even back when the film was made they knew the word was key. As such the introduction of the dog and its' scenes are purely so the joyful shout of 'It's
, sir' is put into context. They could, of course, have changed the code word for success and would have been the obvious solution for a remake.
PC has gone mad, suppose the N word was used in our bible, what then?
When they remade the film Swallows and Amazons, one of the girls in the book, and original film was known as "Titty" in real life throughout her entire life until she died, but when the remade the film, oh no cant used that word Titty, FFS that was her name.
I recall reading about a coloured chappie on a bonding exercise from work had a T-shirt on which said "Midnight", and he was fine with that, but the instructor told him he coldnt wear THAT on the course.
Next day he turned up with a new T-shirt, on the front it had "2359"
When they remade the film Swallows and Amazons, one of the girls in the book, and original film was known as "Titty" in real life throughout her entire life until she died, but when the remade the film, oh no cant used that word Titty, FFS that was her name.
I recall reading about a coloured chappie on a bonding exercise from work had a T-shirt on which said "Midnight", and he was fine with that, but the instructor told him he coldnt wear THAT on the course.
Next day he turned up with a new T-shirt, on the front it had "2359"
How on earth has PC gone mad here?
The word - which people seem to have developed an inexplicable emotional attachment to* - was in the bloody film! It wasn't used in a derogatory context, it was historically accurate and relevant. So in it went.
yes it was mentioned before hand, but surely that just meant your bogeyman of choice 'the snowflake' pissed off and left you to watch it in peace?
The word - which people seem to have developed an inexplicable emotional attachment to* - was in the bloody film! It wasn't used in a derogatory context, it was historically accurate and relevant. So in it went.
yes it was mentioned before hand, but surely that just meant your bogeyman of choice 'the snowflake' pissed off and left you to watch it in peace?
- its like children being told they can't do something.
Edited by Vocal Minority on Tuesday 17th January 10:58
Edited by Vocal Minority on Tuesday 17th January 11:00
Edited by Vocal Minority on Tuesday 17th January 11:01
Vipers said:
PC has gone mad, suppose the N word was used in our bible, what then?
When they remade the film Swallows and Amazons, one of the girls in the book, and original film was known as "Titty" in real life throughout her entire life until she died, but when the remade the film, oh no cant used that word Titty, FFS that was her name.
I recall reading about a coloured chappie on a bonding exercise from work had a T-shirt on which said "Midnight", and he was fine with that, but the instructor told him he coldnt wear THAT on the course.
Next day he turned up with a new T-shirt, on the front it had "2359"
And in the musical Oliver there was no reference to Master Bates.When they remade the film Swallows and Amazons, one of the girls in the book, and original film was known as "Titty" in real life throughout her entire life until she died, but when the remade the film, oh no cant used that word Titty, FFS that was her name.
I recall reading about a coloured chappie on a bonding exercise from work had a T-shirt on which said "Midnight", and he was fine with that, but the instructor told him he coldnt wear THAT on the course.
Next day he turned up with a new T-shirt, on the front it had "2359"
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff