PDA

View Full Version : Jackson to remake Dambusters: confirmed



AWL_Spinner
08-31-2006, 07:33 AM
BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5301998.stm) story.

I would have done a forum search for the last time this came up and used that thread, but as I recall it got locked.

As, presumably, will this one as soon as it descends into heated debate about what they're going to call the dog.

On another tack,



Jackson asked his agent to inquire about the possibility of remaking the film at the same time as he was securing the rights to the Lord of the Rings trilogy in the 1990s.

"He came back and said that [film company] Icon had the rights and that Mel Gibson was going to direct and possibly act in it," Jackson said.

"Obviously that didn't happen."

Thank heaven for that. England-hating Mel can just **** off!

darkhorizon11
08-31-2006, 07:50 AM
Wonderful, we all know how passionate Mel Gibson is about the British defeating Nazi Germany and saving the Jews... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

MEGILE
08-31-2006, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by AWL_Spinner:

As, presumably, will this one as soon as it descends into heated debate about what they're going to call the dog.



hehe people on the internet are so dumb.

Haigotron
08-31-2006, 08:35 AM
jackson captured the essence of the LOTR books (which are of course better than said movie) and i believe he can do a good job http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

im excited http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

oh btw, is it me or has he lost ALOT of weight?

Feathered_IV
08-31-2006, 08:40 AM
Probably means it will be made in three parts over several years.

SkyChimp
08-31-2006, 08:41 AM
Oh great, another British film about the British winning the war all by themselves without even acknowledgement to the US for their contribution. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ploughman
08-31-2006, 08:42 AM
Well he had alot to lose.

So the scoundrels at the Daily Mail were right. Fancy that, even a stopped clock...

I just hope the dam rights people don't get a hold of this and turn it into another 'major civil engineering works' crusade like they did with The Bridge at Remagen.

SkyChimp - Jackson's from Nude Sealand. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LeOs.K_Walstein
08-31-2006, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Oh great, another British film about the British winning the war all by themselves without even acknowledgement to the US for their contribution. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Were the Americans there, too? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Wallstein

panther3485
08-31-2006, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Oh great, another British film about the British winning the war all by themselves without even acknowledgement to the US for their contribution. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Good one, SkyChimp! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

stanford-ukded
08-31-2006, 08:56 AM
Americans are always late to show up. Pfft.


:P

SkyChimp
08-31-2006, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by LeOs.K_Walstein:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Oh great, another British film about the British winning the war all by themselves without even acknowledgement to the US for their contribution. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Were the Americans there, too? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Wallstein </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fish on!

Flying_Nutcase
08-31-2006, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Oh great, another British film ...

He's a Kiwi. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

But yes, with English heritage. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

I just hope he doesn't turn it into a friggin CG fest. I can't stand computerised gorillas and stuff that looks like CG creations and move like CG creations. Maybe with inanimate things like planes it should look real enough. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

ploughman
08-31-2006, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by LeOs.K_Walstein:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Oh great, another British film about the British winning the war all by themselves without even acknowledgement to the US for their contribution. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Were the Americans there, too? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Wallstein </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the risk of being serious, yes.

CLICK ON ME!!!!! (http://www3.sympatico.ca/jimlynch/bharis32.htm)

Divine-Wind
08-31-2006, 09:17 AM
Nude Sealanders ftw!

panther3485
08-31-2006, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LeOs.K_Walstein:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Oh great, another British film about the British winning the war all by themselves without even acknowledgement to the US for their contribution. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Were the Americans there, too? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Wallstein </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the risk of being serious, yes.

CLICK ON ME!!!!! (http://www3.sympatico.ca/jimlynch/bharis32.htm) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, IIRC there were 7 Americans that participated in the Battle of Britain, so why not have one in the Dambusters raid? Only sounds right to me! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

R988z
08-31-2006, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Flying_Nutcase:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Oh great, another British film ...

He's a Kiwi. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

But yes, with English heritage. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

I just hope he doesn't turn it into a friggin CG fest. I can't stand computerised gorillas and stuff that looks like CG creations and move like CG creations. Maybe with inanimate things like planes it should look real enough. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since most of it happened at night in the dark the CGI hopefully won't look that bad as the darkness can hide a mutlitude of sins. The CGI in Pearl Harbour wasn't that bad either, at least as far as appearence goes and that was a few years ago now, should have something better these days. Either way I'd rather see a CGI Lanc than a big hairy Gorilla, real or otherwise, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Flying_Nutcase
08-31-2006, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Divine-Wind:
Nude Sealanders ftw!

-----
www.urbandictionary.com: (http://www.urbandictionary.com:)
FTW

For The Win
Commonly used among geeks to express their enthusiasm for something, especially in IRC.
-----
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Or perhaps you had something else in mind. As an anti-FMBer, I know you're capable of irrational thought. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

R988z: Good points. It shouldn't be a prob afterall.

SkyChimp
08-31-2006, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LeOs.K_Walstein:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Oh great, another British film about the British winning the war all by themselves without even acknowledgement to the US for their contribution. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Were the Americans there, too? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Wallstein </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the risk of being serious, yes.

CLICK ON ME!!!!! (http://www3.sympatico.ca/jimlynch/bharis32.htm) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cool!!!! I hope the movie stars Tom Cruise!

ploughman
08-31-2006, 09:48 AM
Jackson's already made a film starring 'little folk.' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

AWL_Spinner
08-31-2006, 09:49 AM
There are a couple of flying Lancs in the world so it's perfectly possible to get a lot of real footage (indeed I believe Jackson has already shot some of the BBMF Lanc in the UK).

No need for cheesy CGI physics when you've footage of the real thing to work from.

Fingers crossed for a proper period piece complete with stiff upper lips and plummy accents.

SkyChimp
08-31-2006, 09:54 AM
It's about time a movie was made about the American that led the dambusters raid.

AWL_Spinner
08-31-2006, 09:56 AM
That brave hero from Kansas who led the Lancasters in his hedge-hopping P51?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Closter
08-31-2006, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by LeOs.K_Walstein:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Oh great, another British film about the British winning the war all by themselves without even acknowledgement to the US for their contribution. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Were the Americans there, too? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Wallstein </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Divine-Wind
08-31-2006, 10:19 AM
Eagle Squadron mate! If Ben Affleck and Alec Baldwin say they were, they must've been!

King Kong owns yer sooul.

stathem
08-31-2006, 10:27 AM
Is it time for a 'King Kong vs A Lancaster with a 22,000lb Grand Slam; who would win?' poll?

ploughman
08-31-2006, 10:39 AM
Time to spam the King Kong forums again?

zeno303
08-31-2006, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by AWL_Spinner:
BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5301998.stm) story.

I would have done a forum search for the last time this came up and used that thread, but as I recall it got locked.

As, presumably, will this one as soon as it descends into heated debate about what they're going to call the dog.

On another tack,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
"He came back and said that [film company] Icon had the rights and that Mel Gibson was going to direct and possibly act in it," Jackson said.

"Obviously that didn't happen."

Thank heaven for that. England-hating Mel can just **** off! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No doubt Mel's Lanc would be crewed by kilted, blue painted Scots. (Where is Gordon Jackson when you really need him?)

Don't know why they would need the "rights" to an historical event. I thought half the fun of redoing a classic film was ignoring most of what was done in the brilliant original in favor of lame rewrites & inventions done by the new producer & director.

Still, could be good.

SkyChimp
08-31-2006, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Time to spam the King Kong forums again?

I triple dog dare you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

leitmotiv
08-31-2006, 10:55 AM
I understand certain contentious matters will be dealt with by making Gibson's pet Shep the Wonder Hog.

AWL_Spinner
08-31-2006, 01:45 PM
Kiwi news story (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3782818a10,00.html) here.


The film will be based on the book The Dam Busters, the 1954 British film of the same name €" and new information about the top-secret mission, which included two New Zealanders and an American as well as British and Canadian crews.

There you go, there was an American onboard - McCarthy I think - so Tom Cruise can save the world after all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ploughman
08-31-2006, 02:11 PM
Great, another opportunity to get a Tom Cruise joke in.

Jackson's already made a film starring 'little folk.' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Divine-Wind
08-31-2006, 02:12 PM
Be sure.

Edit: I think McCarthy was one of the Canadians, but I'm not sure.

AWL_Spinner
08-31-2006, 02:17 PM
Ooh, wouldya look at this CGI Lanc.. (Dan Meyer)
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/beejaviate/march07_03-copy.jpg

ploughman
08-31-2006, 02:18 PM
No he was born in Long Island. I know this because I clicked on the link to the obituary I posted earlier. He remained in the RCAF until he retired, curiously his last posting was in Virginia.

Here's some more, from a Times Obit.

"WING COMMANDER JOE McCARTHY

Wing Commander Joe McCarthy, DSO, DFC and two Bars, American Dam Buster pilot, died in Virginia on September 6 aged 79. He was born in St James, Long Island, on August 31, 1919.

Joe McCarthy was the Dam Buster who, after weeks of intensive and dangerous low level training, almost failed to get airborne to participate in the raid itself. When on that memorable evening of May 16, 1943, the Lancasters of 617 Squadron rolled out for take-off from Scampton, Lincolnshire, for their historic mission, McCarthy and his crew clambered expectantly into their aircraft "Q for Queenie" only to find the Lancaster completely out of action with leaking hydraulics.

Determined not to be balked, McCarthy rushed his crew over to the spare plane, "T for Tom", only to find this virtually unserviceable too, since the card giving the compass deviations vital for accurate flying was missing from the cockpit. The chances of bringing the aircraft through the myriad of carefully-charted flak emplacements which lay between them and their target were zero without it.

With anger in his heart for another major setback - McCarthy, a 210 Lb. bull of a man, climbed down from his cockpit for a second time and headed in a rage for the hangar, fortunately to be met by Flight Sergeant "Chiefy" Powell, the squadron's senior NCO..."

Link to obit. (http://www3.sympatico.ca/jimlynch/bharis32.htm)

AWL_Spinner
08-31-2006, 02:18 PM
And....


http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/beejaviate/may_29.jpg

ploughman
08-31-2006, 02:19 PM
HOLY COW!!! THAT'S BEAUTIFUL!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Divine-Wind
08-31-2006, 02:19 PM
I want one for BoB. Be sure.

leitmotiv
08-31-2006, 02:23 PM
Whhhhhhhhhhhhere did you find those Lanc images?

HuninMunin
08-31-2006, 02:24 PM
If we'll get the Lanc,
we'll get 110s and 188s......be shure.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Daiichidoku
08-31-2006, 02:32 PM
i would only hope the remake stay in the dry, factual spirit of the original, untainted by "hollywood" excess and pretentionousness(?lol)

PJ prob the man to do it, too

i hope they can, and will

1) stay historical, although the bit about GG's pooch IS sticky, of course

2) as in the original, NO LOVE INTEREST, aside from that of the Lanc itself :P

Low_Flyer_MkVb
08-31-2006, 02:36 PM
Oi! Chimp! No! This is a residentual area!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/freshfish4a.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AWL_Spinner
08-31-2006, 02:44 PM
Leitmotiv,

Found them on another thread on the same topic. I've had a quick Google for Dan Meyer CGI but can't find an official hompage.

There's a few more on this page (http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/beejaviate), including this Beautiful Junkers...
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/beejaviate/junkers.jpg

leitmotiv
08-31-2006, 02:48 PM
I'll wager Jackson is the man to bull through this project and do it right regardless of the flak, and I'll bet he'll deal with the dog without PC twaddle. He took three dead dreary novels and made a masterpiece about war out of them---I give him 99% odds of making a film as memorable, maybe more, than the original. His being nuts about WWII aircraft will not hurt at all. Another thing, he completely avoided making the customary relationship sub-plot front and center in RINGS, excepting Frodo and Sam! This is the first film I'm anticipating in years.

AIEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!! Ju 88A-1!!!!!!! Thanks, Spinner, thanks a million!!!!!!!

ploughman
08-31-2006, 02:58 PM
I did quite like King Kong, and I normally find primates a bit of turn off unless they look like Kiera Knightly, but he worked his magic on that one. PJ's definately in the zone and the moment and, who knows, he might even re-ignite the genre.

Divine-Wind
08-31-2006, 03:01 PM
You dare compare Keira Knightley to an ape?!

HuninMunin
08-31-2006, 03:04 PM
At least we can hope to get some descent characters and are almost safe from the feared CGI-fest.
Even King Kong, wich is one big special effect, never gave you the feeling of "look how cool our fx-work is".
You know, this feeling you get when you look at the new Star Wars trilogy.

orkan_3d
08-31-2006, 03:15 PM
If he make a movie with real Lancs, I`l have to make myself see it, even if he directed that boring victorian "we no pee, we no ****, no f@*k ferytale", and imagine, MEL GIBSON! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

p1ngu666
08-31-2006, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
i would only hope the remake stay in the dry, factual spirit of the original, untainted by "hollywood" excess and pretentionousness(?lol)

PJ prob the man to do it, too

i hope they can, and will

1) stay historical, although the bit about GG's pooch IS sticky, of course

2) as in the original, NO LOVE INTEREST, aside from that of the Lanc itself :P

theres a couple of romantic things i can remmber about guy gibson, "i never want to see iceicles dangle from my wife nose again", and he was with her in a boat iirec, when war was declared.

later 617 sqn raids could be used for a follow up film too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

leitmotiv
08-31-2006, 03:35 PM
D--n good ape demolition special effects in KONG. Great Golden Age USN aircraft. Cheers, Marc Mitscher

Divine-Wind
08-31-2006, 03:44 PM
Buttsecks still owns j00.

Bo_Nidle
08-31-2006, 03:57 PM
I think Peter Jackson will make a first rate job of this film. LOTR trilogy will go down in history as a cinematic masterpiece and I enjoyed "King Kong".

CGI is the only way to go for the Lancs as I doubt the only two left in the world are going to be risked attempting to recreate the hazardous flying. I also doubt that they would go along with the extensive modifications to the airframe necessary to make them look like the raid Lancs.

Thank God that Mel Gibson is NOT involved. The more I read and see about him the more of an incredible phallus-head the man seems!! Hopefully his latest drink-drive escapade together with his vile anti-semetic outburst towards the officer will take him out of the Hollywood scene for a while! He typifies the "Hollywood historical revisionist film-maker" at its worst.

leitmotiv
08-31-2006, 04:12 PM
Bo_Nidle is right---this is going to be computer-generated within an inch of its life, see Kiwi link below. No harm---Cameron did incredible things with sets, models, and computers in TITANIC. Budget only 50 mil US; thus, we will be spared an American actor playing GG. By the way, alas, Jackson won't be directing.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=100&ObjectID=10399181

orkan_3d
08-31-2006, 06:01 PM
I also doubt that they would go along with the extensive modifications to the airframe necessary to make them look like the raid Lancs.


It`s not a big dill to alter real life footage with CGI, they do that all the time. I have not seen many good done aerial sceenes done with CGI.

Feathered_IV
08-31-2006, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I'll wager Jackson is the man to bull through this project and do it right regardless of the flak, and I'll bet he'll deal with the dog without PC twaddle.

He did seem to get through all the outcry about naming a post-911 movie The Two Towers. Maybe he'll win out on this one too.

Bo_Nidle
08-31-2006, 07:38 PM
He did seem to get through all the outcry about naming a post-911 movie The Two Towers. Maybe he'll win out on this one too.[/QUOTE]

To be fair the book was published several decades before 9/11. To rename it due to the coincidence of the name similarity would not have been the most sensible decision.

Flying_Nutcase
08-31-2006, 07:40 PM
----
about 10 full-scale replicas of the Lancaster bombers used in the 1943 raid will be built
----

Promising, even if they're just ground models. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

leitmotiv
09-01-2006, 01:17 AM
The original film did very well with model animation. At the time the British were No.1 in film model animation for aircraft and ships thanks to incredible model makers like Norman Ough. Compare IN WHICH WE SERVE, for example, with Hollywood WWII model animation---the latter was a joke. This film ought to light a bonfire under the tails of sim designers. There have been two magnificent Lanc sets for FS2004 released this year (one just a few days ago). Another will be coming out for CFS3. Clearly, a Lanc market exists!

WTE_Googly
09-01-2006, 05:49 AM
On 3 News in New Zealand they did an interview with one of the New Zealand pilots who flew in the raid about the upcoming movie, here is a link to it.

http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/tabid/67/articleID/12670/Default.aspx

"Tauranga's surviving Dambuster pilot, Les Munro, says Peter Jackson will need to be careful picking the crews for his remake and warned of heavy flak if the remake became a love story. "

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

IIJG69_Kartofe
09-01-2006, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Oh great, another British film about the British winning the war all by themselves without even acknowledgement to the US for their contribution. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Aaaaaabsolutely not !!!

German let the english win the war because they threaten them to migrate all the scottish to germany if they don't surrender.

Churchill is a verry hard negociator but that is purely inhuman! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

RNZAF
09-01-2006, 06:33 AM
Awesome news that the film is to be re-made... and that it will shed some new light onto the intricacies of the mission itself that were not able to be covered previously due to secrecy.
Even if it is partly shot in CGI, its a bloody good story (always loved the origonal)

As for replicas, hell.. they have a beautifuly restored (static) example stashed away at MOTAT
in Auckland. (Museum Of Transport And Technology) Check this link: http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/lanc.html

Even though it will be based around the RAF, it may be a great opportunity to show how the Allies rallied together to collect the best crewmen together in one squadron. British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand & American.

Bloody Awesome!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Hope they do the Legend justice...looking forward to it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Feathered_IV
09-01-2006, 08:12 AM
To be fair the book was published several decades before 9/11. To rename it due to the coincidence of the name similarity would not have been the most sensible decision.

Mmm, thats what I meant - original book title/original dog etc. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

leitmotiv
09-01-2006, 08:22 AM
Just what I needed for my Hasegawa Lanc RNZAF!---thanks for the phots! Just Flight released a well-detailed Lanc for FS2004 last week with fully detailed bombardier's station, W/OP station, and navigator's station.

Enforcer572005
09-01-2006, 09:18 AM
those guys deserve an updated movie, and the blazes with the dog controversy, just call it dog and avoid all that distracting hysteria. The RAF crews of so many countries deserve the full attention that this film can garner, if it's done in the same theme as the original. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

The multi national nature of the RAF is really interesting. And Richard Todd's portrayal was brilliant, especially in the theatre when he got the spot light idea. He and his men should get all the attention-they desrve it.

DuxCorvan
09-01-2006, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by Divine-Wind:
You dare compare Keira Knightley to an ape?!

Well, she is an ape. We all are apes, FYI. Even me. I'm an ape, of the same species than Keira. Put us together in the same cage, and observe our mating rituals.

Bo_Nidle
09-01-2006, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To be fair the book was published several decades before 9/11. To rename it due to the coincidence of the name similarity would not have been the most sensible decision.

Mmm, thats what I meant - original book title/original dog etc. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I know mate, I was reinforcing your point. thats the problem with typing its hard to get the right tone of voice in the the conversation. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

leitmotiv
09-01-2006, 03:50 PM
First compromise: Now dog named "Trigger"---see comparison of forthcoming film with the 1954 film at the bottom of the story.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2337881,00.html

ploughman
09-01-2006, 04:04 PM
Well thank god for that, now we can get on with a good film about a daring mission instead of all the PR being spent explaining why a dog in the 1940s had name that's unacceptable today and why it doesn't mean Guy Gibson's a racist.

berg417448
09-01-2006, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
First compromise: Now dog named "Trigger"---see comparison of forthcoming film with the 1954 film at the bottom of the story.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2337881,00.html

But now all the Roy Rogers fans will be complaining!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b4/Triggercomic.jpg

DuxCorvan
09-01-2006, 04:23 PM
Hey, I think the big hit is gonna be this movie (http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=3966).

AWL_Spinner
09-01-2006, 04:49 PM
I think that Times dog name comment is toungue in cheek, it's surely too early in the production cycle to have a script nailed down.

IMHO if there's even the slightest chance that hand wringing revisionists decide that altering the past to suit today's morals is the way forward, the whole dog angle should be left out of the film entirely. There's plenty of other things to concentrate on and annoying people with a dog called Trigger would divert attention from the story of the crews.

leitmotiv
09-01-2006, 05:41 PM
Dog can't be left out---recall Gibson's signal for success was the dog's name. Also, there is the emotional hook of the dog getting run over right before the raid, and Gibson's order to bury the dog just as the raid commenced. I think this is profound idiocy---what next? Is the title of one of Conrad's novels going to changed because it uses the word none dare speak (except American gangsters)?

ploughman
09-01-2006, 05:46 PM
How many people do you think are going to be annoyed by a dog called Trigger as opposed to a dog called ****** Spinner? Or are you just being tongue in cheek?

LStarosta
09-01-2006, 05:49 PM
Maybe they should save themselves the hassle and just use a black Mexican cat and call him Moreno?

DuxCorvan
09-01-2006, 05:50 PM
Well, you have that Agatha Christie's novel... no one dares to make a new movie of it... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

DuxCorvan
09-01-2006, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Maybe they should save themselves the hassle and just use a black Mexican cat and call him Moreno?

Well, moreno means 'brunette', or 'suntanned'. Besides, with English pronunciation, it sounds similar to 'almorrana' ('hemorroid'). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Grue_
09-01-2006, 06:16 PM
What are you lot on about? Dambusters has already been remade http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.visit4info.com/details.cfm?adid=24268

LStarosta
09-01-2006, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Grue_:
What are you lot on about? Dambusters has already been remade http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.visit4info.com/details.cfm?adid=24268

But Artur Boruc isn't German...

leitmotiv
09-01-2006, 07:18 PM
The legendary ad---finally got to see it, thanks Grue.

Last surviving Dams pilot implores Jackson no Hollywood and no romance:

http://www.bayofplentytimes.co.nz/localnews/storydispla...thesecondsubsection= (http://www.bayofplentytimes.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3699572&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=)

panther3485
09-01-2006, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Well thank god for that, now we can get on with a good film about a daring mission instead of all the PR being spent explaining why a dog in the 1940s had name that's unacceptable today and why it doesn't mean Guy Gibson's a racist.

I've said it before each time this comes up and I'll say it again.

I don't think they should alter the dog's name (only my opinion but a very strongly held one). BUT I think it's very likely that they WILL submit to PC pressure and make the change.

And all our discussion here or anyone elses discussion anywhere will not make one jot of difference. That's my forecast and I've already resigned myself to be disappointed.


Best regards, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3485

leitmotiv
09-01-2006, 09:32 PM
I think the auguries are for the greatest bomber film since the original (which, along with 12 O'CLOCK HIGH, gets my vote for best WWII flying film). I think the dog business is silly nonsense which ought to be dealt with firmly and realistically, i.e., the times were different---accept it. Anyway, Jackson, as producer, will, I'm certain, make sure the film does justice to the subject. He took some pretty awful novels and made a classic film about war out of them which everybody from a three yr old to a cynical jade such as I could enjoy so I'm optimistic he'll make sure this item is a classic. Cheers, Butch Harris

Aaron_GT
09-02-2006, 01:19 AM
Better to rename the dog than have the only thing in the news about the film be the name of the dog being a controversial one with racist overtones, and all that hoohah. They say that there is no such thing as bad publicity, though.

The.Tyke
09-02-2006, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by Grue_:
What are you lot on about? Dambusters has already been remade http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.visit4info.com/details.cfm?adid=24268

Great !! Going to log in and download the high quality version of that ad for keeps ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

panther3485
09-02-2006, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"Better to rename the dog than have the only thing in the news about the film be the name of the dog being a controversial one with racist overtones, and all that hoohah."

In my opinion, better to have any amount of controversy and hoohah, and I mean any amount, than to submit to PC bull$hit and rename the dog, or the codeword. But the odds are that said submission will occur. I'll be very, very pleasantly surprised if it doesn't.



"Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"They say that there is no such thing as bad publicity, though."

And 'they' are probably right!

ploughman
09-02-2006, 03:43 AM
I know where you're coming from Panther, and ideally it wouldn't matter, but people are going to be insulted rightly or wrongly. I'd hate for this film to be hijacked and turned into 'was Guy Gibson/the RAF racist' and for it to end up being about the dog's name and not the mission, the airmanship, the ingenuity, the bravery and the sacrifice. I mean, look at this thread, it's now all about the bleedin' dog.

Have you had a look at the RAF's bit about the mission on it's website? It's a great resource for it.
Link to RAF site. (http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/dambusters.html)

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-02-2006, 03:50 AM
As always when that site is mentioned, I'll give a plug to the downloads section - some great old photographs there for your wallpapers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

TROOPER117
09-02-2006, 04:06 AM
Its really annoying.. We have to be seen to be so bloody pc about naming a dog??
As I grew up, there was so many dogs called by the same name, or even 'Blackie'.. I can assure you that not once did we even think about racsist overtones, they were just family pets names for god sake!
The pc brigade have the whole frigging world on tenderhooks, and we are so scared to say anything out of place in case it offends.
To be honest, if they rename the dog, they will be removing historical fact. If its name was Yella, or Shep, people would still be up in arms because historical fact is being removed!
Lets go the whole hog then and have the aircraft dropping bouncing bombs as B-17's, lets just see what an outcry there would be then...
You can't have it both ways. stick to historical fact, or just turn it into a Hollywood farce!

Regards.. Dave S.

DuxCorvan
09-02-2006, 04:09 AM
I suggest they call the puppy 'N-Word'. "N-Word, come here!" "N-Word, sit down, sit!"

And to make it clear, this text at the end:

"No animal was hurt in the making of this film, nor was named after any offending name or racist term according to modern standards. Besides, no actor was allowed to have sexual congress during the making of this film, so that their minds and souls would be clean and pristine as babies after baptism."

QUOTES:

"- Oh no, they've killed N-Word! God bless them and let them abominate this sinful act through his guide!"

"- We're going to Germany to blow those dams. This will show a hard lesson to those misleaded poor sons of old Germany"

"- There's our dear friend from the USA, Lt. Holton.
- Who, the blonde guy right there?
- (Gasp) He's not blonde. He's Europeamerican."

"- Oh no! Been hit! Excrement, excrement!"
- Care your language, youngster!"

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-02-2006, 04:19 AM
You know if Tarrantino was announced as director we'd be expecting such things and lauding him as a cinematic genius with a flair for observant and true to life dialogue...just a thought.

ploughman
09-02-2006, 04:22 AM
Still on about the dog?

Feathered_IV
09-02-2006, 04:38 AM
I look forward to seeing all those B-17's in the air together at one time. Thank God it wasn't a British operation. Not too many RAF bombers around these days.

TROOPER117
09-02-2006, 04:39 AM
You bet your @rse we are mate... Important to stand up against the pc crowd!... where will it all end??

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-02-2006, 04:40 AM
Think about it (cue wavy screen and harp music)

Scene:Airfield perimeter track. Daylight. Two lead characters in jeep.

Squadron Leader:" Of course, the French don't call them chips. They call them pomme de terre frites."
Flight Sergeant: "Get out of here! So what about the Yanks?"
Squadron Leader: "Oh, they have fries..."

Cut to interior of briefing room.

Air Vice Marshall: "Listen up muthaluvvas! We gonna kick some *** tonight - you listenin' to me shoothead? I said we gonna kick some ***! This guy here is Mister Wallace and he come up with some muthluvvin' bouncing can of freakin' whupass that's gonna freakin' kick the krauts in the freakin' nuts. Just look out for those crazy 88's - there's probably not really 88 of them but it just sounds cool..."

panther3485
09-02-2006, 04:53 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
"I know where you're coming from Panther, and ideally it wouldn't matter, but people are going to be insulted rightly or wrongly. I'd hate for this film to be hijacked and turned into 'was Guy Gibson/the RAF racist' and for it to end up being about the dog's name and not the mission, the airmanship, the ingenuity, the bravery and the sacrifice. I mean, look at this thread, it's now all about the bleedin' dog.

Have you had a look at the RAF's bit about the mission on it's website? It's a great resource for it."

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

Yes, and I do appreciate where you're coming from as well. I acknowledge that the points you make are reasonable ones. They just are not of sufficient weight to change my mind, such is the strength of my conviction on this.

First and foremost, I don't think the flak or its outcome would be likely to be as bad as you say, or as all-consuming and destructive (though it would nevertheless be pretty bad, I reckon). But even if it were, I would not budge one millimetre from my position here. I strongly believe it is very important not to.

To me, this isn't just about the Dambusters, or any one military operation, any one war, any one period in history. It is far, far bigger than that. It applies to ALL historical movies, ALL historical novels, ALL historical accounts, ALL representations of history, whatever form they may take.

To make a historical movie reasonably authentic and representative, we need to show people dressed as they would have been, behaving as they would have been, and speaking as they would have been, as close as we reasonably can to what's known, and most importantly without this kind of bull$hit censorship .

It is a matter of historical fact that in days gone by, people did have certain attitudes, behaviours and sayings that would be deemed 'unacceptable' today, but this does NOT give us a valid reason to 'sanitize' those things. People and events should, as far as possible, be shown as they really were.

And I don't buy the 'Guy Gibson as a racist' thing, because the dog's name was fairly representative of the way people generally spoke and thought during those times. If the dog's name was 'racist', then that is a reflection of the society where black dogs were frequently so named, without so much as a second thought.

To me, the principle of representing history as truthfully and frankly as we reasonably can is way, way more important than any objections that could ever be raised. That's just my opinion, but one I hold very strongly indeed and would fight for.


Best regards,
panther3485

panther3485
09-02-2006, 04:57 AM
Originally posted by TROOPER117:
Its really annoying.. We have to be seen to be so bloody pc about naming a dog??
As I grew up, there was so many dogs called by the same name, or even 'Blackie'.. I can assure you that not once did we even think about racsist overtones, they were just family pets names for god sake!
The pc brigade have the whole frigging world on tenderhooks, and we are so scared to say anything out of place in case it offends.
To be honest, if they rename the dog, they will be removing historical fact. If its name was Yella, or Shep, people would still be up in arms because historical fact is being removed!
Lets go the whole hog then and have the aircraft dropping bouncing bombs as B-17's, lets just see what an outcry there would be then...
You can't have it both ways. stick to historical fact, or just turn it into a Hollywood farce!

Regards.. Dave S.

As far as I'm concerned, if we're forced to submit to this kind of PC cr@phead bollocks in a historical movie, it has ALREADY BECOME A FARCE, NO MATTER HOW GOOD IT OTHERWISE MAY BE.

panther3485
09-02-2006, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by TROOPER117:
You bet your @rse we are mate... Important to stand up against the pc crowd!... where will it all end??

'Thought Police' and even worse censorship. In fact, I think we're almost there already.

ploughman
09-02-2006, 05:25 AM
I like the idea of Samuel L. Jackson playing Guy Gibson and the rest of the Sqd. being the brotherhood, it's a good point you make LF, and to be honest I'm just about a gnat's testi from thinking the dog should be called N***** just like he was and if the PC crowd don't get it they can just bugger off.

We might yet get to see the impact of Tarantino on the genre. He may (or may not, who knows) be making a Dirty Dozen type war film provisionally named "Inglorious Bastards."

Inglorious Bastards (http://everythingtarantino.com/data/inglorious_bastards.shtml)

panther3485
09-02-2006, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
I like the idea of Samuel L. Jackson playing Guy Gibson and the rest of the Sqd. being the brotherhood, it's a good point you make LF, and to be honest I'm just about a gnat's testi from thinking the dog should be called N***** just like he was and if the PC crowd don't get it they can just bugger off.

We might yet get to see the impact of Tarantino on the genre. He may (or may not, who knows) be making a Dirty Dozen type war film provisionally named "Inglorious Bastards."

Inglorious Bastards (http://everythingtarantino.com/data/inglorious_bastards.shtml)

If I had my way, my idea would be to make public anouncements before the release, stating that the movie contains historically authentic names and language, some of which might be considered inappropriate by today's standards.

Further, that these names and language were portrayed honestly, to maintain historical authenticity and show a true-to-life tone, character and feel of the persons and events depicted.

Finally, that anyone who feels they might be offended or upset by such frank and honest portrayal should not watch the film.


A similar notice would appear clearly on the screen before the movie starts.


It'll never happen, of course. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

puhakka-GB
09-02-2006, 05:39 AM
At the end of the day the dog's name WAS ******, period! If you start re-writing history to fit the mores of the day you really are on the slippery slope to an Orwellian future were he who contols the present controls the past, Airstrip One anybody???? My grandad fought in North Africa and Italy and he had a dog called Blackie, does that mean that the Eighth Army were a bunch of racist? If it's OK for Spike Lee to use the 'N' word every other sentance then it smacks of hippocrisy.

ploughman
09-02-2006, 05:52 AM
I think Spke Lee using the word every other sentance is an example of that community reclaiming an offensive term and turning it on its head whereby a derogotry term used as a form of oppression by the downpushers, so to speak, then becomes a term of honour when used by an person of African origin to another. There's nothing hypocritical about it. Sort of 'Rats of Tobruk' and all that.

Not that that's got Fanny L. Adams to do with anything mind you.

leitmotiv
09-02-2006, 06:16 AM
What infuriates me about the nonsense is that the Stalinist PC lobby's "central committee" decides what kind of history we get and which words can be used in that history. When I was in college, we all laughed at what Mr Bowdler did to Shakespeare and now his heirs are doing the same thing to history in my time. Stuff and nonsense.

panther3485
09-02-2006, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by puhakka-GB:
"At the end of the day the dog's name WAS ******, period! If you start re-writing history to fit the mores of the day you really are on the slippery slope to an Orwellian future were he who contols the present controls the past, Airstrip One anybody????"

Exactly and very well said. When dealing with history, I don't think it's fair or right to sanitize what was really going on to suit modern ideas of PC.



Originally posted by puhakka-GB:
"If it's OK for Spike Lee to use the 'N' word every other sentance then it smacks of hippocrisy."

Apart from Ploughman's point in the post below yours, which was a valid one I think, we should not mix in examples of modern usage when trying to make a case for authentic historical representation. We need to keep our case clear and I think this 'muddies the waters'.


Best regards, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3485

LStarosta
09-02-2006, 09:37 AM
Just wondering what makes it all right to use the word Kraut or Jap or words like pig latin (when referring to the German language) in WWII movies which obviously do have racist overtones, but makes it absolutely taboo to have a dog be called N*gger, which AFAIK wasn't racist at all?

What I'm trying to say is: let's not be racist about what is considered racist. Or something.

Political "correctness" and "racial sensitivity" is completely racist in and of itself.

Aaron_GT
09-02-2006, 09:49 AM
I'd hate for this film to be hijacked and turned into 'was Guy Gibson/the RAF racist' and for it to end up being about the dog's name and not the mission, the airmanship, the ingenuity, the bravery and the sacrifice.

This is my feeling. It would end up being a film remembered for the name controversy, and that could be a disservice to the crews. Ideally it wouldn't matter about the name, but it inevitably it will, and it's a small compromise to keep things concentrated on the mission. I am sure the controversy would get the film more publicity, and maybe even mean more bums on seats, but at what cost to the memory of the crews?

Aaron_GT
09-02-2006, 09:53 AM
If I had my way, my idea would be to make public anouncements before the release, stating that the movie contains historically authentic names and language, some of which might be considered inappropriate by today's standards.

It might work to defuse most of the issues. Maybe Jackson needs to sound out opinions first to get an idea of the reaction.

Here's another idea, rename the dog to Niger. Very similar derivation, and a small change. Of course people might think that he named his dog Nigel. But then every 5th Englishman is called Nigel. The rest are called Simon, I think.

zeno303
09-02-2006, 11:17 AM
The dogs name will be changed, if they include him at all. (Tigger?)

IMHO, if this movie gets made, it's more likely more PC heat will be generated re bombing dams & drowning more than 500 civilians and 700 POWs. I suspect more anguish will be manufactured in the film about this comcern than took place in real life.

panther3485
09-02-2006, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'd hate for this film to be hijacked and turned into 'was Guy Gibson/the RAF racist' and for it to end up being about the dog's name and not the mission, the airmanship, the ingenuity, the bravery and the sacrifice.

This is my feeling. It would end up being a film remembered for the name controversy, and that could be a disservice to the crews. Ideally it wouldn't matter about the name, but it inevitably it will, and it's a small compromise to keep things concentrated on the mission. I am sure the controversy would get the film more publicity, and maybe even mean more bums on seats, but at what cost to the memory of the crews? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

None.

panther3485
09-02-2006, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If I had my way, my idea would be to make public anouncements before the release, stating that the movie contains historically authentic names and language, some of which might be considered inappropriate by today's standards.

It might work to defuse most of the issues. Maybe Jackson needs to sound out opinions first to get an idea of the reaction.

Here's another idea, rename the dog to Niger. Very similar derivation, and a small change. Of course people might think that he named his dog Nigel. But then every 5th Englishman is called Nigel. The rest are called Simon, I think. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting, as among other things, the word you've proposed was an original form of the one we're discussing now!

Don't like the idea, though.

ploughman
09-02-2006, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If I had my way, my idea would be to make public anouncements before the release, stating that the movie contains historically authentic names and language, some of which might be considered inappropriate by today's standards.

It might work to defuse most of the issues. Maybe Jackson needs to sound out opinions first to get an idea of the reaction.

Here's another idea, rename the dog to Niger. Very similar derivation, and a small change. Of course people might think that he named his dog Nigel. But then every 5th Englishman is called Nigel. The rest are called Simon, I think. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bill Bryson demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Academie Francais that all Englishman are named Colin Crapspray.

Ruy Horta
09-02-2006, 11:49 AM
Who gives a flying toss about what the dog will be called, will it really matter while watching a +120min movie about a famous bombing raid?

If they call the dog ****** its fine with me, but it isn't a show stopper if they don't.

Historical movies have always been subject to society's current way of thinking, the same in 1930's as it is now. Still that need not stand in the way of a good yarn.

Want history, read either a good book or watch a quality documentary (none of that 45min hero worship **** either).

panther3485
09-02-2006, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
"Who gives a flying toss about what the dog will be called...."

IIRC, it's not just the name of the dog, it's also the codeword for mission success? Either way, I for one 'give a flying toss' and more, and I'm evidently not totally alone there either.



Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
"....will it really matter while watching a +120min movie about a famous bombing raid?"

To the majority who lack the detailed historical knowledge, no. To the minority who have the knowledge, some will be annoyed by it and others will not. Of those who will be annoyed, some will be annoyed a lot. But if it is changed, as I suspect it will be, none of us will be able to do anything about it so that will be that.


Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
"If they call the dog ****** its fine with me, but it isn't a show stopper if they don't."


If they call the dog by it's historically correct name, that would be the ideal IMHO. If they avoid it by not having the dog in the film at all, that would be one thing, but do they avoid using the codeword? If they change the name for PC reasons, then for me it won't exactly be a 'show stopper' as you put it but it will have some negative impact on my enjoyment of the film, because I'll know it wasn't just the result of poor research or a lack of information.



Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
"Historical movies have always been subject to society's current way of thinking, the same in 1930's as it is now."

Doesn't mean we should meekly accept this kind of PC bull$hit as a 'given' every time a historical movie is made. Realistically, The name change will most likely happen, but no law says we have to f***ing well like it.



Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
"Still that need not stand in the way of a good yarn."

It not a 'yarn'.



"Want history, read either a good book or watch a quality documentary (none of that 45min hero worship **** either)."

No, I don't want 'history' like in a documentary. What I do want is that a movie based on historical events should be as authentic and true to life in all such details as the movie maker can produce, given the information available and within the limitations of the medium. These limits should not be dictated by PC considerations. The movie certainly shouldn't be less accurate in any of these details than the original 1954 movie and should strive to be more so if possible.


Best regards, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3485

Aaron_GT
09-02-2006, 01:43 PM
Interesting, as among other things, the word you've proposed was an original form of the one we're discussing now!


It doesn't carry the stigma, though, so it might be a good compromise if one is required.

stanford-ukded
09-02-2006, 01:53 PM
Songs containing racist content in the lyrics

* "***** *** *****z" by Goon Squad
* "Black Korea" by Ice Cube
* "Cave *****" by Ice Cube
* "Hadji Girl" by Cpl. Joshua Belile
* "Make Poop" by Mr. Safety
* "****** Claus" by Howard Stern
* "No ******s In Our Schools" by Mr. Safety
* "****** ****er" by David Allan Coe
* "One in a Million" by Guns N' Roses
* "Speak English or Die" by SOD
* Almost Every Song By Johnny Rebel
* "Kill the Children, Save the food" by GG Allin
* "White Riot" by The Clash

[edit]

Songs containing racist content that often condemns racism
[edit]

A-C

* "Africa Sucks" by Carlos Sanchez
* "Alabama" by Neil Young
* "Alabama Bus" by Brother Will Hairston
* "And End to White Rule" by Disrupt
* "Angry White Guy" by Jim's Big Ego
* "Bash the Fash" by Oi Polloi
* "Biafra" by Zounds
* "Biko" by Peter Gabriel
* "Black Bodies" by Ryan Harvey
* "Blackbird" by The Beatles
* "Breed" by Severed Head of State
* "Brother Louie" by The Stories
* "Buenos Tardes Amigo" by Ween
* "Buffalo Soldier" by Bob Marley
* "Colt 45" by Afroman

[edit]

D-F

* "Divine Right" by Econochrist
* "Don't Call Me ******, Whitey" by Sly and the Family Stone
* "Doesn't Make it Alright" by The Specials
* "Don't Call Me White" by NOFX
* "Down In the Tube Station at Midnight" by The Jam
* "Drowning" by Hootie and the Blowfish
* "Ein Sommer nur für mich" by Die Ӟrzte
* "Force or Service" by Conflict
* "Free Nelson Mandela" by The Specials A.K.A.
* "Frijolero" by Molotov
* "**** Nazi Sympathy" by Aus Rotten
* "****ing Racist Maggots' by A Global Threat

[edit]

G-K

* "Ghetto Gospel" by Tupac Shakur feat. Elton John
* "Go Pick My Cotton, Tar Monkey" by DERF
* "Guilty of Being White" by Minor Threat
* "Hate Crime Update/Abolish Apartheid" by Autonomy
* "Hitler's in The Charts Again" by The Exploited
* "Hurricane" by Bob Dylan
* "Ignorance of Pride" by Dystopia
* "In The Flesh" by Pink Floyd
* "Indian Reservation" by Paul Revere and the Raiders
* "Irma Jackson" by Merle Haggard
* "Keep It In The Family" by Anthrax
* "Kill All The White Man" by NOFX

[edit]

L-P

* "Lee and Molly" by Ziggy Marley and the Melody Makers
* "Long Summer Days" by Two Gallants
* "Master Race" by Axegrinder
* "Master Race" by Mad Professor
* "Mr. Cab Driver" by Lenny Kravitz
* "Nazi Atrocities" by Dropdead
* "Nazi Die" by [[1]]
* "Nazi Punks, **** Off!" by The Dead Kennedys
* "Nazi White Trash" by Leftover Crack
* "No Master Race" by The Unseen
* "Oliver's Army" by Elvis Costello and the Attractions
* "Passing Complexion" by Big Black
* "People Are People" by Depeche Mode

[edit]

R-S

* "Race Riot" by The Necros
* "Racism" by Human Greed
* "Racism Sucks" by 7 Seconds
* "Redemption Song" by Bob Marley
* "Rednecks" by Randy Newman
* "Reggaejunkiejew" by Ween
* "Road to Acceptance" by Green Day
* "Schrei nach Liebe" by Die Ӟrzte
* "Seth" by Big Black
* "Ship Those ******s Back" by Odis Cochran & the Three Bigots
* "Slave Labour" by Sore Throat
* "Smash Racism Now" by Nausea
* "Society's Child" by Janis Ian
* "Son of The Black Ark" by Lee "Scratch" Perry
* "Southern Man" by Neil Young
* "Steve Oh Holy Steve" by Steve Rockers
* "Stolen Land" by *****house of Representatives
* "Strange Fruit" by Billie Holiday
* "Swastika Rats" by Aus Rotten

[edit]

T-Z

* "Terminated With Extreme Prejudice" by World Burns To Death
* "The AmeriKKKan Dream" by Fleas and Lice
* "The Ballad of Hurricane Katrina" by Evan Greer
* "The Black Panther Song" by This Bike Is a Pipe Bomb
* "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll" by Bob Dylan
* "The Power Of Equality" by Red Hot Chili Peppers
* "This Ain't No Picnic" by The Minutemen
* "This is What I Want" by This Bike Is a Pipe Bomb
* "White Girl" by X
* "White Minority" by Black Flag
* "White ******" by Eyehategod
* "White Noise" by Stiff Little Fingers
* "Why Can't We Be Friends War
* "Worth His Weight in Gold (Rally Round)" by Steel Pulse
* "Yo I Hate ******s" by Lil Carlos and His Bros
* "Your Racist Friend" by They Might Be Giants
* "You've No One to Blame/Xenophobia" by Disrupt



Why are we even discussing this if these songs are released world wide already?

stanford-ukded
09-02-2006, 01:55 PM
Hm, it wouldn't let me post here as there were a few swear words.

Look at this URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_about_racism


Why are we even discussing this if these songs are released world wide already?

Zeus-cat
09-02-2006, 02:44 PM
How history is viewed is very often determined by the people telling the story.

History is often rewritten, sometimes shortly after it occurs. The military and the press sometimes collaborate to make heroes out of people who didn€t deserve the honor.

One of the guys I work with told me about a man who was turned into a hero, but this man was regarded as a savage murderer by the Americans. This man killed women and children and was generally ruthless in waging war whenever he invaded American territory. Eventually, the Americans were able to surround this man and his regiment and killed all of them in the greatest American victory of the war. After his death, this man was turned into a hero by the enemy. This battle occurred many years ago, but my friend is still bothered that this man is regarded as a great hero even thought he slaughtered many brave Americans. The name of the battle was even changed to enhance the reputation of this butcher of Americans.

Who was this man and what was the battle? You probably know the man as Custer and he died at Custer€s Last Stand. My friend is part Shawnee and Cherokee in case you are a little confused by the story I just told. He feels Custer got exactly what he deserved at Little Big Horn. Actually, he feels he deserved a lot more than he got.

DuxCorvan
09-02-2006, 02:53 PM
I didn't know there was an Inquisition-like "Index of Forbidden Songs" somewhere. Burning offending CDs, someone? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

On the other way, considering most of that is hip-hop, green light, burn'em all... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

About Custer, well, apart from being an ambitious murderous bast*rd and a mediocre a**hole, you can only praise his commanding skills: the first time he had not to kill squaws and children, he managed to get killed with all of his men. Glorious. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

JerryFodder
09-02-2006, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Oh great, another British film about the British winning the war all by themselves without even acknowledgement to the US for their contribution. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Brits are sensible enough to know what actually happened, but in the actual words of the lead in the film Pearl Harbour - Dec 9 1941 - when the attack came - "I think world war 2 just started"

Hollywood yankee words not ours http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JerryFodder
09-02-2006, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by AWL_Spinner:
There are a couple of flying Lancs in the world so it's perfectly possible to get a lot of real footage (indeed I believe Jackson has already shot some of the BBMF Lanc in the UK).

No need for cheesy CGI physics when you've footage of the real thing to work from.

Fingers crossed for a proper period piece complete with stiff upper lips and plummy accents.

Even in Memphis Belle they only used I think 2 B-17's to do the lot, and that was long before 'proper' CGI. That came out very well. Since Jackson is a Kiwi I have high hopes that we won't be portrayed as stupid and posh or pigthick cockneys like in all the Hollywood 'epics' (I include Band of Brothers in that)

leitmotiv
09-02-2006, 03:41 PM
The whole flap would disappear in an instant if the director and the producer stated that the real name of the dog will be used for historical reasons, and leave it at that. Quiet dignity. The other side would look like a bunch of fools.

JerryFodder
09-02-2006, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by AWL_Spinner:
And....


http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/beejaviate/may_29.jpg


Why is there a large strak of birdsh*t down the side of the fuselage at the front? :rolls-eyes:

JerryFodder
09-02-2006, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The legendary ad---finally got to see it, thanks Grue.

Last surviving Dams pilot implores Jackson no Hollywood and no romance:

http://www.bayofplentytimes.co.nz/localnews/storydispla...thesecondsubsection= (http://www.bayofplentytimes.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3699572&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=)


Not quite true. Apparently one of the aircrew (a canadian) sneaked out one night to meet his girlfriend. Next day he was slaughtered by Gibson himself infront of everyone else - that's a true account.

JerryFodder
09-02-2006, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
I think Spke Lee using the word every other sentance is an example of that community reclaiming an offensive term and turning it on its head whereby a derogotry term used as a form of oppression by the downpushers, so to speak, then becomes a term of honour when used by an person of African origin to another. There's nothing hypocritical about it. Sort of 'Rats of Tobruk' and all that.

Not that that's got Fanny L. Adams to do with anything mind you.

Can't believe i'm talking about the f*cking dog but that' bollox mate. There's no reclaimation, face it, whites are banned from that word but blacks use it freely - that's not reclaimation, it's racism in action. This stuff really pisses me off, we have to watch the MOBO awards each year but could ever imagine a MOWO party?

leitmotiv
09-02-2006, 04:18 PM
He meant no romance in the foreground dominating the story as in PEARL HARBOR. In current Hollywood practice, romance is front and center, and history is just a plot mover to be used as you will. In a film centering on the raid, knee tremblers after the pub doubtlessly will be permitted. That Gibson incident would be great for the film.

ploughman
09-02-2006, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by JerryFodder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
I think Spke Lee using the word every other sentance is an example of that community reclaiming an offensive term and turning it on its head whereby a derogotry term used as a form of oppression by the downpushers, so to speak, then becomes a term of honour when used by an person of African origin to another. There's nothing hypocritical about it. Sort of 'Rats of Tobruk' and all that.

Not that that's got Fanny L. Adams to do with anything mind you.

Can't believe i'm talking about the f*cking dog but that' bollox mate. There's no reclaimation, face it, whites are banned from that word but blacks use it freely - that's not reclaimation, it's racism in action. This stuff really pisses me off, we have to watch the MOBO awards each year but could ever imagine a MOWO party? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't call me mate.

CrazyBadger
09-02-2006, 04:52 PM
Do you think Jackson will just focus on the lead up to and the actual raid itself? To me that is enough (just like the original) but even in the original there was a strong background story focussing on Wallace and the whole technical issues of the mission.
Do you think Jackson will stick to this and run the risk of being accused of 1) just copying the original and 2) "being heartless to the suffering of thousands of civilians".
That's why I get the feeling he might just try to inject a parralel story following some of the civilians on the ground so as to give the whole "war is hell" angle that seems most hollywood movies like to portray.

leitmotiv
09-02-2006, 05:04 PM
They said they wanted to stick to Brickhill's 1950s book, DAMBUSTERS, and add in the technical info which was classified in the '50's. The book is about the history of Wallis's bomb, the preparation for the raid, and the raid. The book is the RAF story. From the press releases, it is clear it won't be a disaster film about those in the path of the waters.

p1ngu666
09-02-2006, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
How history is viewed is very often determined by the people telling the story.

History is often rewritten, sometimes shortly after it occurs. The military and the press sometimes collaborate to make heroes out of people who didn€t deserve the honor.

One of the guys I work with told me about a man who was turned into a hero, but this man was regarded as a savage murderer by the Americans. This man killed women and children and was generally ruthless in waging war whenever he invaded American territory. Eventually, the Americans were able to surround this man and his regiment and killed all of them in the greatest American victory of the war. After his death, this man was turned into a hero by the enemy. This battle occurred many years ago, but my friend is still bothered that this man is regarded as a great hero even thought he slaughtered many brave Americans. The name of the battle was even changed to enhance the reputation of this butcher of Americans.

Who was this man and what was the battle? You probably know the man as Custer and he died at Custer€s Last Stand. My friend is part Shawnee and Cherokee in case you are a little confused by the story I just told. He feels Custer got exactly what he deserved at Little Big Horn. Actually, he feels he deserved a lot more than he got.

cool post http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Aaron_GT
09-02-2006, 05:18 PM
So.. by now it must be time to start running a sweepstake on who will be playing the roles.

I'll start with suggesting that Orlando Bloom will play one of the pilots.

Who'll play Barnes Wallis? Hugh Laurie?

LStarosta
09-02-2006, 05:25 PM
Hugh Grant for "Generic English Officer"

Targ
09-02-2006, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
So.. by now it must be time to start running a sweepstake on who will be playing the roles.

I'll start with suggesting that Orlando Bloom will play one of the pilots.

Who'll play Barnes Wallis? Hugh Laurie?

How about that Mr. Bean fella? He seems like a rather nice chap!

leitmotiv
09-02-2006, 05:29 PM
With a 20 mil US budget, they won't be using big names.

stanford-ukded
09-02-2006, 05:30 PM
Guy Pearce as Guy Gibson

Guy Pearce: http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/photos/p_damsraid3a.jpg


Guy Gibson:
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~rn6d-hnd/people/guy_pearce.jpg

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-02-2006, 05:30 PM
Paul O'Grady's 'Buster' as the dog http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

DuxCorvan
09-02-2006, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Hugh Grant for "Generic English Officer"

Better Hugh Grant for "Generic handsomish ******ed".

Colin Farrell for "Sodomized prisoner #3".
Kevin Costner as "Pascua Island Moai head"
Jim Carrey as "Adolf Hitler"
Steven Seagal as "Tree"
Eddie Murphy as "Winston Churchill"
Elijah Wood as "WTF-looking guy"
Richard Gere as "Butt peeping out of a wrecked plane"

panther3485
09-02-2006, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Interesting, as among other things, the word you've proposed was an original form of the one we're discussing now!


It doesn't carry the stigma, though, so it might be a good compromise if one is required. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, Aaron - point taken. If we have to accept something different, IMHO it would certainly be more palatable than 'Trigger' or suchlike. As you say, a compromise.


Best regards, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3485

panther3485
09-02-2006, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The whole flap would disappear in an instant if the director and the producer stated that the real name of the dog will be used for historical reasons, and leave it at that. Quiet dignity. The other side would look like a bunch of fools.

Beautifully said, lietmotiv. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

panther3485
09-02-2006, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by JerryFodder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AWL_Spinner:
And....


http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/beejaviate/may_29.jpg


Why is there a large strak of birdsh*t down the side of the fuselage at the front? :rolls-eyes: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes.... I wonder how many Lancs had American style 'babes' painted on them? Not too many, surely?

panther3485
09-02-2006, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
So.. by now it must be time to start running a sweepstake on who will be playing the roles.

I'll start with suggesting that Orlando Bloom will play one of the pilots.

Who'll play Barnes Wallis? Hugh Laurie?

Inclusion of a few Aussie actors would be good, I think.

Aaron_GT
09-03-2006, 02:29 AM
There are only two Aussie actors that I recall - Guy Pearce (a good choice) and Russell Crowe (dangerous choice), and there is only one New Zealand actor - Sam Neill, and he'd be a bit old for the lead roles!

But if it is low budget (relatively) then perhaps it will just be some people out of Neighbours between that and panto season.

Aaron_GT
09-03-2006, 02:39 AM
How about that Mr. Bean fella? He seems like a rather nice chap!


But could he be made up to look like Wallis?

Feathered_IV
09-03-2006, 03:00 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
So.. by now it must be time to start running a sweepstake on who will be playing the roles.

I'll start with suggesting that Orlando Bloom will play one of the pilots.


Robbie Williams as Guy Gibson http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Friendly_flyer
09-03-2006, 04:39 AM
Playing Wallis will be a challenge. In the original movie he's the role shouldering the "War is Hell" part. It is a rather interesting role, being the creator of the great weapon, yet hating the result of the raid. I would think quite a few experienced actors would like a shot at the role. I could imagine bout Sam Neill and Ian McKellen giving the role life.

AWL_Spinner
09-03-2006, 06:29 AM
A factual movie
617 Squadron flew Lancasters
They put holes in several German dams
Gibson had a dog called ******

A fictional movie
617 Squadron flew X-Wings
They blew up the Death Star
Gibson had a dog called Trigger


How many people do you think are going to be annoyed by a dog called Trigger as opposed to a dog called ****** Spinner? Or are you just being tongue in cheek?

Nope, and furthermore I would suggest "quite a few". The strength of feeling on this thread (not the first time it€s come up, either!) is a good indicator - also try reading around other military aviation forums, especially RAF, you'll see it's most certainly an issue for anyone interested in the dams raid, The RAF, 617 Squadron, or military history in general.

Whilst rewriting the past may not phase you one jot, it certainly annoys a lot of people among the likely core audience for this film, and I would actually be quite surprised if Jackson decided that was an acceptable course of action.

I stand by what I said earlier. As a rational look at this in context seems utterly impossible in today's hysterically PC post-colonial guilt ridden England, it should be left out. Pandering to the (invariably) majority white middle class do-gooding revisionists and renaming the dog should not even be considered.

What€s next, revising all war films from the forties and fifties because of their (often purely racist) slurs on the axis nations? How about those uncomfortable portrayals of native Americans as ignorant murderous savages in all those much-loved Westerns? Shall we build a big pyre and burn all the books? Has that been done somewhere before?

For heaven's sake, the dog's grave is still tended at Scampton. Would you have the grave dug up and concreted over because the headstone may cause offense? We can only learn from history if we accept it warts and all, rather than trying to sanitise it to suit €" a very 21st century disease.

If people can't deal with the way things were in the 1940s, then leave them out altogether. There are plenty of other facts to fill a two hour movie with regarding this incredibly rich and eventful story.

You and I may well agree that the inclusion of afore mentioned hound would provide unnecessary and unwelcome distraction, I fully accept that. I'll never agree that inventing parts of the story to make it "convenient" is the correct way to deal with it!

panther3485
09-03-2006, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by AWL_Spinner:
A factual movie
617 Squadron flew Lancasters
They put holes in several German dams
Gibson had a dog called ******

A fictional movie
617 Squadron flew X-Wings
They blew up the Death Star
Gibson had a dog called Trigger

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How many people do you think are going to be annoyed by a dog called Trigger as opposed to a dog called ****** Spinner? Or are you just being tongue in cheek?

Nope, and furthermore I would suggest "quite a few". The strength of feeling on this thread (not the first time it€s come up, either!) is a good indicator - also try reading around other military aviation forums, especially RAF, you'll see it's most certainly an issue for anyone interested in the dams raid, The RAF, 617 Squadron, or military history in general.

Whilst rewriting the past may not phase you one jot, it certainly annoys a lot of people among the likely core audience for this film, and I would actually be quite surprised if Jackson decided that was an acceptable course of action.

I stand by what I said earlier. As a rational look at this in context seems utterly impossible in today's hysterically PC post-colonial guilt ridden England, it should be left out. Pandering to the (invariably) majority white middle class do-gooding revisionists and renaming the dog should not even be considered.

What€s next, revising all war films from the forties and fifties because of their (often purely racist) slurs on the axis nations? How about those uncomfortable portrayals of native Americans as ignorant murderous savages in all those much-loved Westerns? Shall we build a big pyre and burn all the books? Has that been done somewhere before?

For heaven's sake, the dog's grave is still tended at Scampton. Would you have the grave dug up and concreted over because the headstone may cause offense? We can only learn from history if we accept it warts and all, rather than trying to sanitise it to suit €" a very 21st century disease.

If people can't deal with the way things were in the 1940s, then leave them out altogether. There are plenty of other facts to fill a two hour movie with regarding this incredibly rich and eventful story.

You and I may well agree that the inclusion of afore mentioned hound would provide unnecessary and unwelcome distraction, I fully accept that. I'll never agree that inventing parts of the story to make it "convenient" is the correct way to deal with it! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Exactly. And if we are to be forced to accept the dog being re-named for 'politically correct' reasons, better not to have the dog mentioned at all in the film.

But how do we deal with the codeword? Not mention that either?

DuxCorvan
09-03-2006, 07:06 AM
Hum, so Gibson named his dog after a row of asterisks? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

John_Wayne_
09-03-2006, 07:08 AM
Didn't the Gauls do that with one of their Cheiftans?

Ruy Horta
09-03-2006, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
No, I don't want 'history' like in a documentary. What I do want is that a movie based on historical events should be as authentic and true to life in all such details as the movie maker can produce, given the information available and within the limitations of the medium. These limits should not be dictated by PC considerations. The movie certainly shouldn't be less accurate in any of these details than the original 1954 movie and should strive to be more so if possible.

Although I understand what your are saying, in a sense you are expecting a reenactment or docudrama, not a "movie".

Movies imply dramatization or storytelling: a good yarn.

TORA TORA TORA falls in between, it isn't sufficient as a documentary piece of reenactment, it helas fails as drama. What remains is a dry movie.

It will be reasonable to assume that Dambusters 2007/2008 will for the sake of earning money at the box office be a true movie, with all the needed dramatization, not a piece of historical reenactment.

History doesn't make for box office success, drama does. The name of the dog, or the code words used, will be of secondary importance.

Then again to call the dog by its name would only put things into proper perspective. It is rather silly to make a movie about a raid that cost plenty of civilian lives, while maintaining a holier than though attitude when it comes to the word n1gger.

panther3485
09-03-2006, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
"Although I understand what your are saying, in a sense you are expecting a reenactment or docudrama, not a 'movie'."

You're now getting closer, but still falling a little short. What I expect, want, and have sometimes seen (at least fairly closely in the approach) is something that successfully blends both the 'docudrama' idea and the 'entertaining' movie concept WITHOUT bastardizing details purely for the sake of political correctness. I also apply somewhat different criteria when judging movies based on true life events, rather than those that are pure fiction.



"Movies imply dramatization or storytelling: a good yarn."."

Perhaps, but the change we are talking about here would not be made for the sake of 'dramatization' or 'storytelling' value and does not act to enhance these things in any way at all.


Which brings us to:


"History doesn't make for box office success, drama does."

IMHO a skillful blend of the two, that remains faithful to history, without 'alterations' of the sort under discussion, can be achieved with Box Office success and has been. And sticking to true history in respect of the name under discussion here would do NOTHING to injure Box Office success.


And, more importantly perhaps:


"Then again to call the dog by its name would only put things into proper perspective. It is rather silly to make a movie about a raid that cost plenty of civilian lives, while maintaining a holier than though attitude when it comes to the word n1gger."

NOW you're talking! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

It's way past 'silly' - it's ludicrous! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Best regards, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3485

ploughman
09-03-2006, 09:50 AM
I posted some bollocks. But then I thought, 'what the hell, life's too short.'

S!

panther3485
09-03-2006, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
"So. Everyone's happy with composite characters, plot devices and so on to hurry things along and explain things to the audience, and all the other changes to the historical truth even the most enthusiastic film maker needs to do to cram a complex story into the two hours of bums on seats he's got available...."

No. I'm not 'happy' with it. If it's absolutely necessary to make the movie workable at all, then I must both accept it, and accept that the reason the change was made is a valid one. But I'm not going to be 'happy' with it - it's merely a necessary compromise which, if not made, would mean that the movie itself probably could not be made.

You already know my opinion on the other bit, and I just don't believe it would be anything like as damaging as you appear to propose, unless, of course, the PC lobby and their followers SET OUT to make it 'damaging' and there's the distinct possibility even that could easily backfire on them anyway and make the movie an even bigger success.

And either way, I don't believe that any damage would be done either to the story or the memory of the personnel who took part.

Having said all the above, I understand how you could be narked at some of what's been said, if you took it a certain way. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


Best regards, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3485


Oooops! Sorry! I already had my reply under way before you made the amendment. Please cancel and/or disregard any of the above that you feel no longer applies! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers and best regards, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
panther3485

ploughman
09-03-2006, 10:15 AM
Sorry Panther. I thought this subject was getting under my skin, and worse than that, it was showing so I pulled my post rather than appear 'narked.' I just want folk to marvel at the mission and not be distracted by the name of a dog. Film's make good entertainment but they're not the best medium for the accurate transmission of history. Enough's enough though.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

panther3485
09-03-2006, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Sorry Panther. I thought this subject was getting under my skin, and worse than that, it was showing so I pulled my post rather than appear 'narked.' I just want folk to marvel at the mission and not be distracted by the name of a dog. Film's make good entertainment but they're not the best medium for the accurate transmission of history. Enough's enough though.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif


EDIT: No apology necessary, Ploughman. We are all expressing our points of view here and we all have the right to do that, as long as we are not abusive or insulting others and as far as I can see, nobody has been!

Yeah, I agree with much of what you say. And, movies made with the emphasis on entertainment often are less than ideal for conveying historical information.

That said, enough IS definitely enough.

Like I said at the very beginning of this discussion, I have very strong feelings about what should be done, but I also doubted that the outcome would be as I wish. Those doubts are just a strong and I think the likely outcome is, they WILL alter the name and there isn't a darned thing I can do about it.

But for me, and unless I'm mistaken for a fair number of others, the over-riding and most important, vital principle of this issue is, essentially, that political and/or PC reasons are NEVER adequate justification for corrupting History, even in detail and even in a 'movie', in those cases where the story being told is based on true life events.

The strength of conviction I have for this is so powerful that I will always speak out when I see such things happening, or proposed to happen. My voice, and the voices of others with like mind, will NOT be silenced. We may be powerless to prevent it but we'll always protest.

That said, no worries for me at least, that others have different opinions from mine, or don't feel as I do. That's their right, too! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


Best regards, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3485

Aaron_GT
09-03-2006, 10:43 AM
I could imagine bout Sam Neill and Ian McKellen giving the role life.

McKellen's a bit old - he must be about 70. Wallis was in his mid 50s at the time, and Sam Neill would fit the bill age-wise, and I think he'd do well in the role. And he's lived a long time in New Zealand so Jackson might be able to arrange a New Zealander's discount, but he's actually from Northern Ireland, so it won't offend the "A foreigner playing a British hero' Daily Mail crowd too much, perhaps.

I didn't realise that Guy Pearce is technically a Brit too.

And I suppose Jackson could have a crew of Hobbits flying one of the planes in the shape of Elijah Wood, Dominic Monaghan, et al. Monaghan might have to get his hair cut and have a shave, though. Monaghan was actually born in Germany, though. The Daily Mail and/or Telegraph would go ballistic over that...

Zeus-cat
09-03-2006, 11:07 AM
Can anyone name a movie that you guys find acceptable? I can't think of any war movie that is remotely close to your standard.

Its the name of a dog for crying out loud. This is such a minor thing. Honestly, it doesn't even rate as minor. If I was putting up the money for the movie there is no way I would allow the dog's real name to be used. Movies are about making money, not educating people.

Besides, if the dog's real name is used that is the only thing most peole will remember about Guy Gibson. He won't be a hero in their eyes, he will be a racist jerk.

AWL_Spinner
09-03-2006, 11:53 AM
Ploughman, I didn€t get to your post before you pulled it but apologies if I contributed to your narked state. I find people€s views on this topic interesting - as far as I€m concerned it€s the thin end of a broader wedge and worth debating in a forthright manner. I think I€ve explained my views as well as I€m able and don€t have anything further to add. Well, that's not strictly true, but life€s too short, as you say http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Regards, Spinner

DuxCorvan
09-03-2006, 12:23 PM
Mu thought is: If people wouldn't show themselves so offended when some words are adressed to them, maybe those who use them with offending intentions would be discouraged of using them, and the words would lose their insulting connotations.

The best way to perpetuate their awful meaning is converting them into a taboo. That makes weapons of them.

ploughman
09-03-2006, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by AWL_Spinner:
Ploughman, I didn€t get to your post before you pulled it but apologies if I contributed to your narked state. I find people€s views on this topic interesting - as far as I€m concerned it€s the thin end of a broader wedge and worth debating in a forthright manner. I think I€ve explained my views as well as I€m able and don€t have anything further to add. Well, that's not strictly true, but life€s too short, as you say http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Regards, Spinner

No worries Spinner, I was all a swoon and full of (not so) righteous indignation but I'm glad there're blokes like you and Panther about to counter my "let's everyone all hold hands and we'll all live happily ever after" tendencies. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The one person on these forums who's input I would like to hear on this subject (Bearcat99) has thus far remained mute.

AWL_Spinner
09-03-2006, 01:28 PM
Me too, although I would venture that there are significantly differing weights of history and connotations on different sides of the Atlantic here. But that's verging on thread creep and I said I was done, so I'll shut up now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ploughman
09-03-2006, 01:32 PM
Yar. Me too. Shutting up.

Feathered_IV
09-03-2006, 05:50 PM
Whoa! Wait a sec. I've just prepared a rough draft of the script which contains the name of the d*g. However, every time someone says its name, a truck drives past or a plane flies over.

At the end, when the code word is shouted by the radio operator to the expectant brass and boffins, the WOP (is that a swear word?) does so from behind a sound-proof window.

Everyone waits, wondering. Then a dishy WAAF comes through from the other room and says with typical British understatement, "The operation is a success"

I just tried it out with a cat and some sock puppets. It works quite well. Anyone got Mr. Jackson's phone number?

Beaufort-RAF
09-03-2006, 05:54 PM
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/684/njd1.jpg

panther3485
09-03-2006, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
"Can anyone name a movie that you guys find acceptable? I can't think of any war movie that is remotely close to your standard."

Either you don't know of many movies or you fail to fully comprehend my 'standards'.

Although I've never seen a war movie that I would regard as 'perfect', there are nevertheless enormous variations in quality between different movies, when it comes to historical fidelity.

There are some historically based war movies that have attained relatively high standards in this respect - compared to most other such movies. Two that immediately spring to mind are Battle of Britain and TORA! TORA! TORA!. Sure, if you put them under the micoroscope you can find a few 'errors' or even the occasional 'alteration' but I can't think of anything in either of them that was so clearly and directly motivated by 'political correctness' as what we're discussing here. And in my view, it's this particular type of motive that makes an alteration even more objectionable than would otherwise be the case.

So the movies that satisfy my 'standards' are those that:

(a) Have a high level of general historical and technical accuracy.

(b) DO NOT 'sanitize' things or pander to this kind of 'politically correct' bull$hit.

And my suspicion is that the movie is likely to please me fairly well in aspect (a), but disappoint me considerably in aspect (b).



"Its the name of a dog for crying out loud. This is such a minor thing. Honestly, it doesn't even rate as minor."

That's YOUR opinion.

First, IIRC it's not just the name of the dog, it's also the codeword for mission success.

Second, there is a substantial number of us who disagree and for whom it is NOT a 'minor' thing, for reasons of principle already clearly explained.



"If I was putting up the money for the movie there is no way I would allow the dog's real name to be used."

Then as far as I'm concerned, it's certainly a good thing that it's not YOU putting up the money!



"Movies are about making money, not educating people."

Not necessarily, not always.

The two factors under consideration here are:

(a) 'Making money' with a successful and entertaining movie.

(b) 'Educating people' (or perhaps, more precisely, making sure you don't mis educate people).

These two are NOT mutually exclusive. You can have both. It has been done successfully before and it can be done again.

When making movies that depict historical events, I STRONGLY DISAGREE that making money should be the only requirement.
Just because you need to make money doesn't mean there is no resposibility to portray history accurately. You can, and should be both entertaining AND educating.



"Besides, if the dog's real name is used that is the only thing most peole will remember about Guy Gibson. He won't be a hero in their eyes, he will be a racist jerk."

I seriously doubt that too many people will think that at all.

Those who are going to judge 1940's speech and names by 2000's standards DESPERATELY NEED to be educated. HELLOOOOO!!! Hey, things were
different back then!

And if the dog's name is used by everyone who comes into contact with the animal (which it was IRL) and if the same name is used as the codeword (which it was IRL) and everyone in the film is portrayed as accepting it as perfectly natural (which they did IRL), then there would be no reason to 'blame' Guy Gibson alone or think of him as a 'racist jerk'.

If you are going to think along those lines at all, then you must fairly conclude that the whole society at that time was 'racist'. In some ways, perhaps it was but if so, that is something that should NOT be 'sanitized'. 'Warts and all', please!


Best regards, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3485

panther3485
09-03-2006, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by AWL_Spinner:
"....as far as I€m concerned it€s the thin end of a broader wedge and worth debating in a forthright manner."

Precisely, the thin end of a broader wedge.

Very well put, Spinner. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3485

panther3485
09-03-2006, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
The one person on these forums who's input I would like to hear on this subject (Bearcat99) has thus far remained mute.

Agreed, and although I would be most unlikely to change my opinion, I would have to respect Bearcat's sentiments and take them on board, whatever they might be. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

DmdSeeker
09-04-2006, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
Can anyone name a movie that you guys find acceptable? I can't think of any war movie that is remotely close to your standard.



Yes; but they're German; not hollywood.
Das Boot;
Stallingrad
Den Untergang.

All good entertainment that pull no punches.

Maybe the best people to make the film would be the Germans? How's that for irony.

panther3485
09-04-2006, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
Can anyone name a movie that you guys find acceptable? I can't think of any war movie that is remotely close to your standard.



Yes; but they're German; not hollywood.
Das Boot;
Stallingrad
Den Untergang.

All good entertainment that pull no punches.

Maybe the best people to make the film would be the Germans? How's that for irony. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, 'Das Boot' and 'Stalingrad' - among the better war movies, IMHO. Haven't seen 'Den Untergang'.

And I'd agree that with a few exceptions, Hollywood's efforts are often the biggest offenders when we are measuring the B.Q. ('Bull$hit Quotient') of movies. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Adam906
09-04-2006, 03:27 AM
I agree with Panther whole-heartedly on this. If PJ is out for historical accuracy then he has no other choice but to call the dog n*gger. More importantly, he has no choice bu to use that as the code word for breaching whichever dam it was.

If he is afraid of the flak he will cop as a result all he need do is run a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie...something like:

"This movie is dedicated to the memory of all the brave airmen who flew the 617 Squadron on the dams raid, to those who lost their lives as a result of it, and to the memory of a black labrador whose name immortalised the moment history will forever celebrate as the "Dam Busters".

All the characters in this film were real, as were the events. What you are about to see, is as it happened 60 years ago...."


Or else find a black vet of the time period who was hopefully connected to either Gisbon, 617 or the raid to run a narrators intro type thing.

Political correctness is the bane of modern society - certainly when it comes to history. 30 years from now what do what our grand kids to be - ignorant of the true story, or doped up on Hollywood PC? As far as I am concerned if you are going to make a movie honouring the brave who gave their lives then the least you can do is show enough respect to do the job right and show how it really was.

ploughman
09-04-2006, 03:39 AM
...must...not...respond...***smashes head off keyboard***

In other news, I was poking around looking for some interesting photos of 617 Sqd. and found this unusual shot of a 617 Vulcan at Toronto in 1980.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/617vulcan.jpg

Adam906
09-04-2006, 04:02 AM
Sorry Ploughman - it just makes me so 'dam' angry. Look through the various forums concerning this game and you'll see posts full of things about realism and accuracy for flight models, wingman behaviour, weapons load out or whatever... If we as a forum can be this anal about historical accuracy in a flight sim - surely we should - and have a right to - be standing up as a community being equally as anal about the name of a black lab and the code-name it spawned.

ploughman
09-04-2006, 04:09 AM
Nice photo, eh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

WTE_Googly
09-04-2006, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by Adam906:
I agree with Panther whole-heartedly on this. If PJ is out for historical accuracy then he has no other choice but to call the dog n*gger. More importantly, he has no choice bu to use that as the code word for breaching whichever dam it was.

If he is afraid of the flak he will cop as a result all he need do is run a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie...something like:

"This movie is dedicated to the memory of all the brave airmen who flew the 617 Squadron on the dams raid, to those who lost their lives as a result of it, and to the memory of a black labrador whose name immortalised the moment history will forever celebrate as the "Dam Busters".

All the characters in this film were real, as were the events. What you are about to see, is as it happened 60 years ago...."


Or else find a black vet of the time period who was hopefully connected to either Gisbon, 617 or the raid to run a narrators intro type thing.

Political correctness is the bane of modern society - certainly when it comes to history. 30 years from now what do what our grand kids to be - ignorant of the true story, or doped up on Hollywood PC? As far as I am concerned if you are going to make a movie honouring the brave who gave their lives then the least you can do is show enough respect to do the job right and show how it really was.

Yep well said.

When we start changing things, where will we stop?

Having something at the starts of the movie would be a good idea.

Anyway, I think this movie will be great! He has a love for aircraft, and therefore I think that he will do exploits of 617 squadron (including the dog http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) proud.

Peter Jackson isn't just some ponce who wants to make a few bucks about a historic event he doesn't really care about.

joeap
09-04-2006, 04:59 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Nice photo, eh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Yes Ploughman, smashing pic. That was my fave plane going to the Abbotsford airshow in the 70s with my Dad. That thing was so darn LOOOOUUD. Plus it cast a huge shadow. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

Got a kick out of the old Air Canada scheme on those 727s. My preferred colours are those of CPAir of the 1970s, any Canadian 35 or over will recall the "Orange is Beautiful" slogan.

WOLFMondo
09-04-2006, 05:04 AM
I got to see one fly in RAF Caldrose Airshow in the mid/late 80's. Pretty spectactular display and definately the one thing I'll remember from it.

AWL_Spinner
09-04-2006, 05:32 AM
Can't resist the Vulcan OT, absolutely thrilled XH558 looks like she'll be flying again. I'm convinced being knocked on my back as a nipper by the noise of an airshow Vulcan display is what instilled me with my lifelong love of aviation.

Interesting Vulcan fact: supposedly one could climb out from takeoff with three of the four engines at idle.

Right, back to 617. Nice picture of the hound!

smokincrater
09-04-2006, 05:35 AM
Personally I dont think many people in the target audenice(Britian) would mind to much about bloody dogs name.People in the US would most certainly put up a fuss.So dub over the dogs name in the US version! So people who dont get offended can watch the proper version. And people who do get offended can watch the censored version.The Us tend to dub over British and Australian voices anyway. Like Idoits guide to universe compared to Duffers guide to the universe! Horses for coruses. In Empire Strikes Back the British Rebels were dubbed over by Americans voices. Personally I like to get everything down to nuts and bolts accurate as if you were there riding with them, thats whats film making is all about discovering other worlds. I dont think the film will do well in America simply because it was an all British and commonwealth affair asides from one American pilot. The Yanks like stories about themsevles. When DAS BOOT was being shopped around in Hollywood they wanted to make it later in the war, so the Americans were involed in the story. That was vetoed by the script writer so it became a German film made in Germany. Robert Redford(who was asked to play the old man) would not have done a better performance than Jurgen Proctnow.

panther3485
09-04-2006, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by smokincrater:
Personally I dont think many people in the target audenice(Britian) would mind to much about bloody dogs name.People in the US would most certainly put up a fuss.So dub over the dogs name in the US version! So people who dont get offended can watch the proper version. And people who do get offended can watch the censored version.The Us tend to dub over British and Australian voices anyway. Like Idoits guide to universe compared to Duffers guide to the universe! Horses for coruses. In Empire Strikes Back the British Rebels were dubbed over by Americans voices. Personally I like to get everything down to nuts and bolts accurate as if you were there riding with them, thats whats film making is all about discovering other worlds. I dont think the film will do well in America simply because it was an all British and commonwealth affair asides from one American pilot. The Yanks like stories about themsevles. When DAS BOOT was being shopped around in Hollywood they wanted to make it later in the war, so the Americans were involed in the story. That was vetoed by the script writer so it became a German film made in Germany. Robert Redford(who was asked to play the old man) would not have done a better performance than Jurgen Proctnow.

Agreed. I think Jurgen Prochnow was perfect for the role and I'm glad this movie wasn't subjected to the usual HCS (Hollywood Cr@phead Syndrome).

DoubleTap2005A
09-04-2006, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by smokincrater:
Personally I dont think many people in the target audenice(Britian) would mind to much about bloody dogs name.

Try calling the dog "Mohammed" and see what happens.


The Us tend to dub over British and Australian voices anyway.

Since when? Mad Max? I see alot of American films, and I hear an awful lot of British and Australian accents.


I dont think the film will do well in America simply because it was an all British and commonwealth affair asides from one American pilot. The Yanks like stories about themsevles.

#1 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith Gross- $380,262,555

#2 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe Gross- $US 291,709,845

#3 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire Gross-$289,994,397

#7 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Gross $206,456,431

#8 Batman Begins

The top US film in 2005 starred 2 Scottish actors with British accents, and a Canadian and was about people in a galaxy far, far away, not Americans.

The next 2 were films about, and set, in Britain. One was based on the book by a Brit, the other an Irishman.

Number 7 was set in, again, Britain, and was written by a Brit.

Number 8, a movie about an American comic-book icon that qualifies for near American mythology, starred a Scot as Batman, a Brit, an Irishman, another Brit, another Irishman, a third Brit,a dude from the Netherlands, and a gent from Japan.

Yep, those Yanks are quite the native chauvinists...

ploughman
09-04-2006, 06:48 AM
I didn't know Yoda was Scottish.

AWL_Spinner
09-04-2006, 06:52 AM
From a sheep's stomach, this haggis is formed.

panther3485
09-04-2006, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
I didn't know Yoda was Scottish.

Just shows how wrong you can be, 'cos I thought he was an Irish Catholic! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

berg417448
09-04-2006, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by smokincrater:
Personally I dont think many people in the target audenice(Britian) would mind to much about bloody dogs name.People in the US would most certainly put up a fuss.So dub over the dogs name in the US version! So people who dont get offended can watch the proper version. And people who do get offended can watch the censored version.The Us tend to dub over British and Australian voices anyway. Like Idoits guide to universe compared to Duffers guide to the universe! Horses for coruses. In Empire Strikes Back the British Rebels were dubbed over by Americans voices. Personally I like to get everything down to nuts and bolts accurate as if you were there riding with them, thats whats film making is all about discovering other worlds. I dont think the film will do well in America simply because it was an all British and commonwealth affair asides from one American pilot. The Yanks like stories about themsevles. When DAS BOOT was being shopped around in Hollywood they wanted to make it later in the war, so the Americans were involed in the story. That was vetoed by the script writer so it became a German film made in Germany. Robert Redford(who was asked to play the old man) would not have done a better performance than Jurgen Proctnow.

Films without Americans in them can do quite well in the USA. Master and Commander for example...not a "Yank" to be found in it.

ploughman
09-04-2006, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by smokincrater:
Personally I dont think many people in the target audenice(Britian) would mind to much about bloody dogs name.People in the US would most certainly put up a fuss.So dub over the dogs name in the US version! So people who dont get offended can watch the proper version. And people who do get offended can watch the censored version.The Us tend to dub over British and Australian voices anyway. Like Idoits guide to universe compared to Duffers guide to the universe! Horses for coruses. In Empire Strikes Back the British Rebels were dubbed over by Americans voices. Personally I like to get everything down to nuts and bolts accurate as if you were there riding with them, thats whats film making is all about discovering other worlds. I dont think the film will do well in America simply because it was an all British and commonwealth affair asides from one American pilot. The Yanks like stories about themsevles. When DAS BOOT was being shopped around in Hollywood they wanted to make it later in the war, so the Americans were involed in the story. That was vetoed by the script writer so it became a German film made in Germany. Robert Redford(who was asked to play the old man) would not have done a better performance than Jurgen Proctnow.

Films without Americans in them can do quite well in the USA. Master and Commander for example...not a "Yank" to be found in it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Acheron was Boston built. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Great film that one, did a great job bringing to life my favourite nautical series.

smokincrater
09-04-2006, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by smokincrater:
Personally I dont think many people in the target audenice(Britian) would mind to much about bloody dogs name.People in the US would most certainly put up a fuss.So dub over the dogs name in the US version! So people who dont get offended can watch the proper version. And people who do get offended can watch the censored version.The Us tend to dub over British and Australian voices anyway. Like Idoits guide to universe compared to Duffers guide to the universe! Horses for coruses. In Empire Strikes Back the British Rebels were dubbed over by Americans voices. Personally I like to get everything down to nuts and bolts accurate as if you were there riding with them, thats whats film making is all about discovering other worlds. I dont think the film will do well in America simply because it was an all British and commonwealth affair asides from one American pilot. The Yanks like stories about themsevles. When DAS BOOT was being shopped around in Hollywood they wanted to make it later in the war, so the Americans were involed in the story. That was vetoed by the script writer so it became a German film made in Germany. Robert Redford(who was asked to play the old man) would not have done a better performance than Jurgen Proctnow.

Films without Americans in them can do quite well in the USA. Master and Commander for example...not a "Yank" to be found in it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well there is always one exception! But most Americans perfer to watch themselves. Americans are very patoric and theres nothing bad about that.But it tends to tunnel vision them.

DuxCorvan
09-04-2006, 05:33 PM
Master and Commander: in the novel the enemy boat isn't French, but American -during the 1812 war.

They only took them off because they had to play the baddies and lose... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

leitmotiv
09-04-2006, 05:35 PM
In the past lots of Americans turned out to see British war films. SINK THE "BISMARCK" even inspired a U.S. Top Ten song by Johnny Horton in the spring of 1960! PURSUIT OF THE "GRAF SPEE" did good box office, as did THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN. A BRIDGE TOO FAR was mainly a British story and it did well. The corporations which run the studios now are too conservative. They are convinced all the U.S. and the world wants to see are endless DIE HARD films. See what Michael Caine has to say:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2341438,00.ht...d=OTC-RSS&attr=World (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2341438,00.html#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=World)

ZULU was a tremendous hit in the U.S.---helped make Caine a star. For years lots of Americans watched British TV movies on U.S. public TV on Masterpiece Theatre (they showed PIECE OF CAKE, for example). Audiences will go see a great story. The corporations forget this. DAMBUSTERS is a great story---if the film lives up to the original, Americans will turn out to watch it. Americans turned out in droves to watch CHARIOTS OF FIRE in '81---a film about as far away from their experience as Mars!

panther3485
09-04-2006, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
In the past lots of Americans turned out to see British war films. SINK THE "BISMARCK" even inspired a U.S. Top Ten song by Johnny Horton in the spring of 1960! PURSUIT OF THE "GRAF SPEE" did good box office, as did THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN. A BRIDGE TOO FAR was mainly a British story and it did well. The corporations which run the studios now are too conservative. They are convinced all the U.S. and the world wants to see are endless DIE HARD films. See what Michael Caine has to say:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2341438,00.ht...d=OTC-RSS&attr=World (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2341438,00.html#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=World)

ZULU was a tremendous hit in the U.S.---helped make Caine a star. For years lots of Americans watched British TV movies on U.S. public TV on Masterpiece Theatre (they showed PIECE OF CAKE, for example). Audiences will go see a great story. The corporations forget this. DAMBUSTERS is a great story---if the film lives up to the original, Americans will turn out to watch it. Americans turned out in droves to watch CHARIOTS OF FIRE in '81---a film about as far away from their experience as Mars!


Yeah, I'm sort of inclined to agree here.

What I'm about to say is just my own perception, highly subjective of course, but it seems to me that there was a time in American 'popular perceptions', when there was a certain amount of 'British is cool', if you know what I mean. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

My feeling is that this was given a good dose of additional tonic by the Beatles with their music and pop culture and it rolled on at an enhanced level from there, through Monty Python and other popular icons of British culture.

And as you say, movies from/about Britain and British history/culture seemed to do well for quite a while and I remember during the 80's, when the TV show Magnum PI with Tom Selleck was very popular. John Hillerman was a Texan and his British accent, though fake, was reasonably convincing. There was, seemingly, something rather 'cool' about having a British butler!

Not all Americans do British accents badly - another good one who comes to mind is Gwyneth Paltrow.

Of course, we can always find instances of Britons being portrayed very stereotypically in US movies and TV shows - where they all seem to be polarized as either plum-in-the-mouth upper class twits or jovial morons with cockney accents - but nothing in between!

And although we can also think of instances in more recent movies where the British have been shown in, shall we say, a less favourable light, I think there are also plenty of examples that demonstrate affection for them, sometimes even respect.

So in my view, if you look at the USA in general (not just hollywood) then overall, it is far from having been a case of Americans portraying the British unfairly. Quite the opposite, sometimes!


Best regards to all, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3485

Zeus-cat
09-04-2006, 10:32 PM
panther3485

And if the dog's name is used by everyone who comes into contact with the animal (which it was IRL) and if the same name is used as the codeword (which it was IRL) and everyone in the film is portrayed as accepting it as perfectly natural (which they did IRL), then there would be no reason to 'blame' Guy Gibson alone or think of him as a 'racist jerk'.

If you are going to think along those lines at all, then you must fairly conclude that the whole society at that time was 'racist'. In some ways, perhaps it was but if so, that is something that should NOT be 'sanitized'. 'Warts and all', please!

panther3485,

Have you spent time with people who were overtly racist? I grew up near people who were. They weren't violent, and I firmly believe that they would have never hurt a black person, but they were incredibly racist. You couldn't spend any time with them without hearing n1gger or jigaboo tossed around.

Its very disturbing to be around people like that. To them it was just natural to refer to any black person as a n1gger and to ridicule them. It was just what they did and it was accepted by most of the people they knew. They saw nothing wrong with it and enjoyed doing it.

And the weirdest part of the whole thing was that there were no black people where we lived and these people almost never interacted with black people. I would ask them why they hated black people so much. The usual answer was "I don't hate blacks, I think every one should have one chained up in the basement." I remember one time one of them gave me an honest answer; he didn't know why. They just said this stuff because they always had.

If the use of the word n1gger was relevant to the story being told then it should be in there. But we are talking about British bombers attacking German dams; there is no relevance for using a racist term about black people. Using the dog's real name would detract from the story for the vast majority of people who saw the movie.

I don't believe in sanitizing history any more than you do, but there is a time and place for eveything. The casual use of racial slurs has an effect on people, I've been there.

S!

tagTaken2
09-04-2006, 10:46 PM
I'm voting for historical accuracy. History is full of painful facts, and glossing over them serves nobody. Aren't we all pleased about Jackson as a director because we think it's going to be realistic?

PS, Pearl Harbor.

panther3485
09-05-2006, 12:02 AM
Zeus-cat, I have prepared replies to the first several paragraphs of your post, which I believe you would find mostly satisfactory. However, I don't think this is the place to discuss the issue of contemporary racism so I can send these by PM if you want.

As for the rest of your post:


Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
"If the use of the word n1gger was relevant to the story being told then it should be in there. But we are talking about British bombers attacking German dams; there is no relevance for using a racist term about black people."

Now here is where we start to part company. I believe the use of the historically correct name for the dog (and the codeword for mission success) is both relevant and necessary for historical fidelity and that it should not be taken as a racist slur in the sense you imply. Simply a matter-of-fact portrayal of what was said and used.



"Using the dog's real name would detract from the story for the vast majority of people who saw the movie."

Sorry, but I don't belive this to be the case, for reasons I have already very thoroughly and painstakingly explained.



"I don't believe in sanitizing history any more than you do, but there is a time and place for eveything."

Agreed. But we obviously disagree about the 'where' and the 'when', and probably also about the 'why'.



"The casual use of racial slurs has an effect on people...."

In my opinion, this is nothing to do with 'the casual use of racial slurs', unless naming the Dog in this way, in the 1940's, was a 'casual racial slur'. If it was, then I've already explained my position on that.



"I've been there"

Apparently, judging by your account, so have I and maybe more so, but I have come to a totally different conclusion regarding what should happen in this movie.

Let's face it, we'll never agree on this and that's fine - you're entitled to your opinion just as much as me.


Best regards, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3485

P.S. As we've established our respective points of view and the fact that we differ on this, perhaps it might be wise not to continue further as this is heading towards a subject that we shouldn't be discussing on this forum. As indicated, I've prepared replies to the rest of your post that I can PM to you if required. Otherwise, peace to all and let's drop the subject, eh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

leitmotiv
09-05-2006, 12:08 AM
Jackson is the producer---a special effects guy with whom he has worked is directing it. I'm betting it will be the greatest flying film since THE BLUE MAX, and, like it, a hit to boot. American audiences don't just go for self-referential films---if the film is really good---look at LORD OF THE RINGS---it's about as far from what the corporations and Hollywood think Americans want as you can get. If its good, the Americans will like it just like the liked watching German aviators in THE BLUE MAX.

ploughman
09-05-2006, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Master and Commander: in the novel the enemy boat isn't French, but American -during the 1812 war.

They only took them off because they had to play the baddies and lose... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

To be fair Dux, the whole film is a bit of a montage of the books, Bonden should've been a great hulking bloke, instead he's an ex-hobbit. Maturin performs the operation on himself after being shot by Canning in Calcutta, not by the Lobster in the pacific, and when Suprise does finally catch up with the Norfolk in the book the ship's been ship-wrecked anyway.

DmdSeeker
09-05-2006, 03:55 AM
Has any one read "to Sir, with love"; by ER Braithwaite?

Gives a good cameo of the attitudes met by a black hurrican pilot.

ploughman
09-05-2006, 03:58 AM
No. I take it it wasn't all 'fabulous to see you old boy, want to date my sister?'

smokincrater
09-05-2006, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
want to date my sister?' Send a photo to my PM http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif Just Kidding http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif
But the thing about the dog is a red hairing. Like I said you can dub over the name in different regions it is not a big problem to fix. Everyone just whats a good two hour escape from reality. I really dont want to see films like Peral Harbour that was such a let down. If you can match the charm and charisma of the first film, them it will be worth seeing.

Zeus-cat
09-05-2006, 05:49 AM
panther3485,

I agree to drop it; I think we both have made our points. As for getting close to a line that we aren't supposed to cross, I think we crossed that line a while back. Fortunately, we both kept it civil.

To go back to a previous point, you choose three movies as passsing your test for historical accuracy. As Das Boot is the only one of them I have seen I can only comment on it. As far as I know Das Boot is fictional. There was no specific submarine that this movie portrayed. They could make up any details about the crew they wanted to for this movie and there is no way to dispute them. The Dam Busters story is about specific people on a specific raid. They did and said things which are known facts which is where the problem starts. What facts do you leave in and what facts do you leave out?

smokincrater
09-05-2006, 06:09 AM
Ture and not ture the boats number was U-96. The crew are composites of real life characters. The old man was based on the real commander of U-96 Kptlt. Heinrich Lehmann-Willenbrock.U-96 was sunk on 30 March, 1945 by US bombs in Wilhelmshaven. But everything that happens on the boat is based on actual experiances inccured by the reporter who was the man who wrote the book.Lothar-Günther Buchheim joined U-96 for one patrol as a war correspondent. This resulted in the internationally best-selling novel of submarine warfare Das Boot (The Boat), the short story Die Eichenlaubfahrt (The Oak-Leaves Patrol) and a three-part text-and-photo chronicle U-bootkrieg (U-Boat War), U-Bootfahrer (U-Boat-Men) and Zu Tode Gesiegt (Victoried to Death).
Buchheim was ordered aboard as an official artist to send back renderings of the German Navy in action for propaganda purposes. A camera was to aid his work. Over 5,000 photos survived the war and 205 of these form the epic photo-essay U-Boat War. All the photographs in U-Boat War were taken by Buchheim with the exception of a few taken by U-96 engineering officer Fritz Grade.

Buchheim witnessed the chance of meeting between U-96 and U-572 during heavy storm. This probably occurred in November 1941. U-572 departed on 29/11/41, a few days after U-96. At this time U-572 was commanded by Kptlt. Heinz Hirsacker (who was condemned to death by military tribunal in 1943 charged with "Cowardice in the face of the enemy" - the only U-boat commander to have that fate, being executed on April 24th, 1943. U-572 was lost later in 1943).

He also wrote the book J¤ger im Weltmeer (Hunter in the Ocean) and in 1995 he published the novel Die Festung (The Fortress). Here Buchheim writes about the last days in the port of Brest, France and his dramatic Schnorchel voyage to La Pallice with the last but one U-boat to leave Brest.

Buchheim€s books are controversial because, particularly in his photo essays, he writes very disapprovingly about the U-boats and especially about Admiral D¶nitz. (Refuting Buchheim, Karl-Friedrich Merten wrote a book entitled Wir U-Bootfahrer sagen: "Nein! So war das nicht!" [We U-boat men say: "No, it wasn't so!"] )(thanks to www.uboat.net) (http://www.uboat.net)) But getting back to what you leave in and what you leave out. Well anything that does not need to be understood by the audenice in order to tell the story. Star Wars is a classic you dont need to know why the Melluiem Falcon is the fastest ship in the universe you just go and take Han Solo at his word.

The first film has some shortcuts in it to. Remember the dancing girls scene where Gibson gets his brainstorm about keeping the correct height with lights. Not so a lot of back room boys come up with the idea in the interwar years Arthur Harris even mentions that he played around with it when he was flying floatplanes but it did not work well on the open ocean,only where the water is still like a lake can you use lights. Its a tight rope how much information do you need to tell the audenice compared to keeping the film going. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

panther3485
09-05-2006, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
"panther3485,
I agree to drop it; I think we both have made our points."

Agreed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif



Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
"As for getting close to a line that we aren't supposed to cross, I think we crossed that line a while back."

I think I would most likely disagree with you, over precisely where we were when the line was crossed but as we've both decided to let it drop, that hardly matters now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
"Fortunately, we both kept it civil."

Agreed again, and that's because we're both intelligent, caring, reasonable guys! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif



Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
"To go back to a previous point, you choose three movies as passsing your test for historical accuracy."

I remember citing 'Battle of Britain' and 'TORA! TORA! TORA!' in that regard (please see second post on page 9 of this thread). What was the third movie I cited? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif



Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
"As Das Boot is the only one of them I have seen I can only comment on it. As far as I know Das Boot is fictional. There was no specific submarine that this movie portrayed. They could make up any details about the crew they wanted to for this movie and there is no way to dispute them."

I feel you may be getting a little confused here, as I cited 'Das Boot' and 'Stalingrad' as being "among the better war movies, IMHO" . And that was in a later post, in response to DmdSeeker, AFTER my comments regarding BoB and TTT (see further down page 9 please). I do not recall commenting on their historical accuracy, or lack thereof, anywhere in this thread. But please feel free to contradict me, if you can produce any evidence to the contrary. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif



"The Dam Busters story is about specific people on a specific raid. They did and said things which are known facts which is where the problem starts. What facts do you leave in and what facts do you leave out?"

My conviction remains firm that in the portrayal of historical events in a movie, if 'facts' are to be left out, it should NEVER be for 'political' or 'politically correct' reasons. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


Best regards, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3485

DuxCorvan
09-05-2006, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
To be fair Dux, the whole film is a bit of a montage of the books, Bonden should've been a great hulking bloke, instead he's an ex-hobbit. Maturin performs the operation on himself after being shot by Canning in Calcutta, not by the Lobster in the pacific, and when Suprise does finally catch up with the Norfolk in the book the ship's been ship-wrecked anyway.

Yean, and besides... despite the movie title, in "The other part of the world", Aubrey is not Master & Commander any more. He's Post Captain.

ploughman
09-05-2006, 01:05 PM
Yeah. I mean, DUH!

Zeus-cat
09-05-2006, 03:48 PM
Sorry panther3485 if I got posts mixed up. There have been a lot of them in this thread.

One final comment on the dog's name. If the dog's real name is used, it really should be expalined to US audiences. In the US that term refers to one group of people while in Britain it refers to a completely different group (it did in the 1940's anyway). I can't believe I forgot that until today! Duh!!!

Another case of people divided by a common language!

DuxCorvan
09-05-2006, 03:56 PM
I suggest them naming the dog Motha***ka. That way, when people start protesting, they can say: "Hey, you had to see the *other* name!" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

slappedsilly
09-05-2006, 04:01 PM
That man needs a haircut.

panther3485
09-05-2006, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
Sorry panther3485 if I got posts mixed up. There have been a lot of them in this thread.

One final comment on the dog's name. If the dog's real name is used, it really should be expalined to US audiences. In the US that term refers to one group of people while in Britain it refers to a completely different group (it did in the 1940's anyway). I can't believe I forgot that until today! Duh!!!

Another case of people divided by a common language!

No worries, Zues-cat. Easy to do, when there are so many of them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

I could think of no reasonable objection to your idea of explaining to audiences; in fact, I think it's a very good idea and would help to set things in context. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I can see at least two ways this might be done:

(a) In press releases and other publicity, in the time leading up to the final release of the movie.

(a) In a notice to audiences that would appear on the screen at the beginning of the movie.

It should be made as clear as possible that while the use of this word is deemed totally unacceptable today, its use in the movie is entirely for the purpose of historical fidelity, accurately reflecting accepted usage at the time, the true name of the dog and the actual codeword for mission success, and should not be construed by modern audiences as a racial slur.

{You can probably think of better wording than that, but I think we all get the general idea.}

And, in the final release if there are a few countries where this is still not acceptable, then as someone else here suggested, the name/codeword could always be dubbed over. That should cover all bases, I would think?

And if people who buy it on DVD could choose either the 'original' version or the 'dubbed over' version? OK, now I'm pushing my luck here, I suppose! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif


Best regards, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3485

panther3485
09-05-2006, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
I suggest them naming the dog Motha***ka. That way, when people start protesting, they can say: "Hey, you had to see the *other* name!" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif You're a regular card, Dux! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

LStarosta
09-05-2006, 09:05 PM
It's not as if we're breaking ground here with using n*gger under such circumstances.

I'm sure 50 Cent made a flick where people rolled up in a Lincoln Navigator or Escalade, let some lead loose and yelled "n*gger".

Same premise here. They just didn't have Escalades back then.

What the problem is?