Dambusters film

[Halb]

I really don't like them

[heebeegeetee]

Eric Mc said:

The problem is that they used the actual dog's name as a code word for when a damn went over - so it gets used in more places than just when Gibson is calling after his dog. It's an integral part of the actual events and needs to be included.

What annoys me is that it seems to be the only thing about the whole amazing mission that anybody ever seems to want to talk about.

I believe that British society was once pretty much wholly racist, and that pretty much all of our forebears were racist, judged by today's standards rather than the standards of today.

Speaking as the son of a radio operator in Lancaster bombers, I would much rather the word wasn't used, it would spoil the film for me. I understand the word 'digger' will be used and that is much better.

[Eric Mc]

heebeegeetee said:

Eric Mc said:

The problem is that they used the actual dog's name as a code word for when a damn went over - so it gets used in more places than just when Gibson is calling after his dog. It's an integral part of the actual events and needs to be included.

What annoys me is that it seems to be the only thing about the whole amazing mission that anybody ever seems to want to talk about.

I believe that British society was once pretty much wholly racist, and that pretty much all of our forebears were racist, judged by today's standards rather than the standards of today.

Speaking as the son of a radio operator in Lancaster bombers, I would much rather the word wasn't used, it would spoil the film for me. I understand the word 'digger' will be used and that is much better.

Nonsense. The film is an account of actual events. Pandering to modern misguided sensibilities (in this context) is just plain bonkers.

All they need to do to make those who may be unaware of the context is run a written paragraph in the opening credits or have a voiced over announcement at the start of the movie.

I think it is dreadful that people seem completely unable to adapt their minds to take into account the context of what they are watching or listening to.

[heebeegeetee]

Eric Mc said:

Nonsense. The film is an account of actual events. Pandering to modern misguided sensibilities (in this context) is just plain bonkers.

All they need to do to make those who may be unaware of the context is run a written paragraph in the opening credits or have a voiced over announcement at the start of the movie.

I think it is dreadful that people seem completely unable to adapt their minds to take into account the context of what they are watching or listening to.

Well there you go, I don't think it is dreadful at all. I'm glad that we've been able to educate ourselves over the years and create a better society.

The dog's name was used as the codeword for a damn burst. What the dog's name was is all but irrelevant, imo.

[Eric Mc]

What other facts in the film would you ditch because of their perceived "irrelevance" in your eyes?

If people want to make an accurate factual portrayal of events in history, they should be free to do so and not have to pander to modern sensibilities. For those who are more offended by a dog's name than the bloody dreadfulness of war, I would suggest they need to look at their priorities.

[heebeegeetee]

Eric Mc said:

What other facts in the film would you ditch because of their perceived "irrelevance" in your eyes?

If people want to make an accurate factual portrayal of events in history, they should be free to do so and not have to pander to modern sensibilities. For those who are more offended by a dog's name than the bloody dreadfulness of war, I would suggest they need to look at their priorities.

I don't see that any material facts have been changed. A slight change has been made to one name, to change it from an offensive name to a perfectly acceptable name. What on earth is the issue?

Keeping to the original name risks alienating a significant proportion of the potential audience.

I also dare say that the language of those in battle would have been rather blue, but if the film recreates that too (and this applies to countless films no doubt) then we can't let children watch. So let's change it to something acceptable, without affecting the story in any way, and lets get the biggest audience to the film as possible. I really don't see what the problem is.

[Ayahuasca]

heebeegeetee said:

I don't see that any material facts have been changed. A slight change has been made to one name, to change it from an offensive name to a perfectly acceptable name. What on earth is the issue?

The issue is that you want to edit history to make it more 'acceptable' to modern audiences.

You would probably want no references to 'Japs' in remakes of Pacific theatre WWII films either.

[heebeegeetee]

Ayahuasca said:

The issue is that you want to edit history to make it more 'acceptable' to modern audiences.

The history is edited from the moment it's being written down.

[Evangelion]

The most offensive word anyone said in the original film was 'bloody.' During the actual mission that was probably the least offensive word that was used. Crews were probably effing and blinding non-stop, but that doesn't mean it should be in the movie. Film makers these days seem to feel it necessary to dot every eye and cross every tee, but it really isn't.

My mother used to say: "People weren't having sex all the time in films when I was young." Of course they were, it just wasn't depicted or referred to is the only difference. You think Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman didn't have a good shag in Casablanca?

[Ayahuasca]

heebeegeetee said:

Ayahuasca said:

The issue is that you want to edit history to make it more 'acceptable' to modern audiences.

The history is edited from the moment it's being written down.

Yes and then it is generally left alone.

Were you OK with the movie 'U-571' editing the history of the capture of the German Enigma machine?

[Voldemort]

Evangelion said:

You think Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman didn't have a good shag in Casablanca?

Yes, I think they didn't have a shag in Casablanca. For sure they did in Paris, but not in Casablanca. You should watch it again.

[williamp]

To remake the film without the Dog or the code word, or refrence to the word would be fine. I expect a squadron at war would use over 50 codewords. We didnt hear what angels they flew at, whether they were bounced by a pancake, etc. But leave out one word is, aparently rewriting history?? The dog didnt design the bomb, it didnt fly the plane. What were his wifes feelings when she heard what her husband had been doing that night??

[Evangelion]

Voldemort said:

Evangelion said:

You think Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman didn't have a good shag in Casablanca?

Yes, I think they didn't have a shag in Casablanca. For sure they did in Paris, but not in Casablanca. You should watch it again.

Sorry, when I said 'Casablanca' I was referring to the movie not the place!

[Eric Mc]

williamp said:

To remake the film without the Dog or the code word, or refrence to the word would be fine. I expect a squadron at war would use over 50 codewords. We didnt hear what angels they flew at, whether they were bounced by a pancake, etc. But leave out one word is, aparently rewriting history?? The dog didnt design the bomb, it didnt fly the plane. What were his wifes feelings when she heard what her husband had been doing that night??

As it was the code word chosen to reveal whether the raid had worked or not, it was a bit more important than a routine message.

And, in reality, the whole mission would have been carried out under strict radio silence - the exception being the morse transmission of the letters that made up the dog's name. It was a seminal moment in the real events and it would be a travesty to faff about because some oversensitive fools get upset about one word.

[Halmyre]

Voldemort said:

Evangelion said:

You think Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman didn't have a good shag in Casablanca?

Yes, I think they didn't have a shag in Casablanca. For sure they did in Paris, but not in Casablanca. You should watch it again.

There's a scene where Ilsa turns up at Rick's apartment where it's obvious she's willing to trade favours for the letters of transit. Whether or not Rick has a poke for old times' sake is left for the viewers' sordid imaginations. Certainly at the airfield, Ilsa is resigned to staying with Rick, but he's really got the hots for Captain Renault.

[Eric Mc]

I always wondered what he meant when he said "Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship".

[IanH755]

heebeegeetee said:

Eric Mc said:

What other facts in the film would you ditch because of their perceived "irrelevance" in your eyes?

If people want to make an accurate factual portrayal of events in history, they should be free to do so and not have to pander to modern sensibilities. For those who are more offended by a dog's name than the bloody dreadfulness of war, I would suggest they need to look at their priorities.

I don't see that any material facts have been changed. A slight change has been made to one name, to change it from an offensive name to a perfectly acceptable name. What on earth is the issue?

Banning Homosexuality and making illegal until the 1967 is now considered a homophobic yet "The Imitation Game" didn't change the portrayal of Alan Turings arrest due to his gay lifestyle to make it "acceptable" to a wider modern audience as an example.

The dog was called , the code word for the Dams breach was and those are facts, whether "modern" audiences like them or not and rewriting history is a slippery slope. However, gven the choice it seems easier just to leave the dogs name out of it, so using things like "come here boy", "it's about your dog sir, there's been an accident" and "the code for a successful breach will be named after my dog" and the final "it's the confirmation code sir, the dams been breached!!!" etc, so omission rather than a name change.

Edited by IanH755 on Sunday 4th March 16:24

[TonyToniTone]

Are Hollywood films now used for historical reference?

[Dr Jekyll]

Where there any black personnel on any of Gibson's squadrons and is there any record of whether they found the dog's name an issue?

[Emanresu]

There is nothing big or clever about an imperialist country bursting a dam and flooding a valley killing thousands of innocent people. I still don’t understand why people glorify it?

Maybe a few hundred years ago, Britain was a force to be reckoned with. Now it’s just a tiny, backwards island that can’t even make trains run on time and nobody wants to trade with. It’s time people realised it. Britain is nothing now. Just an insignificant little island dragging part of Ireland into its bullst.