Topic RSS | Reply to topic
Author Post



Posted Mon Mar 16th, 2009 12:09pm Post subject: Dambusters remake
"FeiJi Fancier" » I think the dog is not something that needs to be mentioned at all. That's the best way to avoid any controversy, surely.

There is more than enough new material and information about the actual event to make the film more accurate and longer - and people's lives and their contributions are surely more important.

While Gibby no doubt had a bond with his pet, I don't think it is of such importance that it needs to be considered at all.

The dogs name is some thing binded in the storie as he was known to be man and his dog the dog became the mascot of 617 squadron and niger became the code word for a hit on the damns.

Back to top

G for George


Posted Tue Mar 17th, 2009 1:48pm Post subject: Dambusters remake
Watch many American comedies with black actors eg. Bad Boys, Beverley Hills Cop. They use the N word frequently. So why is it a problem for this film? Particularly as there is no racism intended!

Back to top



Posted Thu Apr 16th, 2009 7:10am Post subject: Dambusters remake
It amazes me all the controversy over the dog's name whilst brushing under the carpet all the unimaginable horrors these raids caused on the ground.

But, of course, this will NEVER be shown as it would spoil the film, wldnt it?

Perhaps some tips shld be taken from the film "Dresden".

Back to top



Posted Sun Jun 28th, 2009 8:04pm Post subject: Dambusters remake
I can't believe this has generated fuss; if those involved hadn't flagged it up as a tricky point of controversy, and instead just changed it like any sensible person would, there wouldn't have been much noise. Most people who walked into a remake of The Dambusters would NOT know the name of the dog beforehand, and would find the use of the 'N' word completely incongruous. It would sound both offensive and ridiculous. It is unrealistic to think that most people in the audience would just nod and say 'well things were different then.' They'd wonder why it was used in a movie made NOW. And the people who think it should be kept for historical accuracy make my blood boil a little; it's a MOVIE. People who look at it as a factually accurate historical document are clearly too stupid to be entitled to opinions. And people who think that changing it amounts to 'whitewashing' history are living on another planet.

Back to top



Posted Mon Aug 1st, 2011 1:44pm Post subject: Dambusters remake

It saddens me that people waste opportunities to focus on more important issues about the raids and the remake, by arguing about a dog. Slavery was a holocaust, to sit there and argue for turning back the clock, is frankly bizarre. Language changes through time, get over it.

What is FAR more important is that this film is an opportunity to redress the notion that the B-17 single-handedly won the war. This raid took place before even the first B-17 raids, Bomber Command had been busy for 3 years already. The B-17 was an amazing aeroplane, but could only carry 6000lbs, while the Lancaster could carry 14,000lbs of bombs.
The Lancaster too was able to take incredible punishment, just like the B-17, but unlike the B-17, performed many daring low-level raids such as the Dams, Augsburg raids and eventually carried 22,000 in broad daylight.

Johnny Johnson, the highest-scoring allied pilot of WW2 wrote in his autobiography, that a bricklayer named "Jock" from Glasgow on the 6th of June, over Normandy, took his lancaster down to below 2000 feet and began a fighter-bomber strafing run on German convoys in the roads below. This kind of unofficial low-level bombing is just one of the many exploits of the Lancaster that we never see in the movies. Hopefully this film will redress the B-17/Lancaster argument and perhaps by showing the coastal flak and it's effect on the Lancasters, the movie will show the truth, that the Lancaster flew higher, lower, carried more and took more punishment at times, than it's US counterpart.

The age old argument "Oh well you guys did that at night didn't you, B-17's had to do it in broad daylight too" is only factually correct for about 1 actual year of the war. After mid-1944, when the Luftwaffe were weakened in preparation for D-Day, RAF Bomber Command routinely flew daylight missions with four-engined heavy bombers such as the Lancaster. The USAAF received drop tanks and also Mustang fighters around the same time in 1944 and similarly enjoyed greater protection.

I'm nervous about this remake. Seems strange to revisit an old topic, when there are so many heroic and important deeds still yet to be chronicled by the media.

The real message of this movie, should be about British scientists being far ahead of the Americans in many areas, but our Government failing to manage our resources properly. As a result America took the lead after the war and has maintained it ever since. This is the real shame. Our present Government should go and watch this movie.

I fully agree with MissPrim, tampering is wrong. They don't need to actually say the Dog's name, you could see the Pilots observe the breach and cut to Scampton, where an officer says "codeword received"

Back to top



Posted Tue Aug 2nd, 2011 4:27am Post subject: Dambusters remake

Didn't realize it was a competition, rollosnook. The comparison of the 2 really is kind of pointless because the B-17 and Lancaster were very different animals. Yes the Lancaster carried a heavier pay load, but it couldn't climb as high or travel as far. It seems to make more sense to accept that both aircraft played important roles, in different ways, and each served their purpose. And for the same side

As for the real message of the film, it's as it should be. War is hell, people die, and nothing is impervious.

I cannot be awake for nothing looks to me as it did before, Or else I am awake for the first time, and all before has been a mean sleep.
Walt Whitman

Back to top



Posted Mon Jan 9th, 2012 12:34pm Post subject: Dambusters remake

I think there no need of making so much ado about naming dog.

Back to top



Posted Tue Jan 17th, 2012 4:10am Post subject: Dambusters remake

As someone who's actually served in a war, not stateside mind you, not as an armchair general or even a historian, I can tell you right now that details DO matter. Why?

Because it's the TRUTH. And the truth is ugly sometimes. Horrific.

How would you feel if someone suggested covering up the ugly details of the Auschwitz camp because an audience might find it 'uncomftorable'?

How about slavery and the whip and the hot sun and the blood and the families torn apart? Such images do, and SHOULD, make people uncomftorable.

On this day, MLK's day, do you have any idea how horrified HE might be to realize that there are many black youths now who have no clue whatsoever about what went down in Detroit or Watts in the '60's? Or the worship of thuggery over peace? Do you think he would ignore it because the topic might make peopel 'uncomftorable'?

The winds of facism have been blowing at the top for a while now, and are coming down into the valley where most of us live every day. From telling people what they can do with their bodies to continuing the exploitation of children's sexuality before they even understand what it is, to the 'illegal immigrant' as the new boogeyman of our age, to pretending that everybody is nice, and evolved, and well groomed and interested in shiny things alone, and who wish and demand silence that pretends there is no ugliness that can go on behind them to build them...this is a poisonous wind, billowing like a drop of ink in still water.

Sanitized versions of the truth might be fine for comedy and romance, but even for historical fiction are going too far, imo.

Really? Wow.

Back to top



Posted Mon Jul 2nd, 2012 8:22pm Post subject: Dambusters remake

Quick question aimed at Nitro. Concerning your display picture, is that Cary Grant with a moustache? Which film is that?

Back to top