• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • General Discussion Forums
  • General Discussion
Dam Busters waiting for the first complaint!
<<
<
4 of 6
>>
>
GusGus
30-12-2016
Originally Posted by phylo_roadking:
“I saw the version with the name removed, I nearly choked on my own spit. To me its sacrosanct, the film itself is almost as important a piece of history of its time as the real events were. But I'm especially biased as I am/was related to Richard Todd.”

Trevor MacDonald interviewed Morgan Freeman a few years back. During that interview he told Morgan that there was a n****r in the White House to which Morgan asked "What is he doing there"
If any non black person had made such a comment the "snowflakes" (love that description/name) would be screaming blue murder
Resonance
30-12-2016
Originally Posted by Peter the Great:
“I think you don't know what you are talking about. It is the Daily Mail that likes to get outraged because a bare arse was shown on the BBC at 21.05.”

Strange, given their website's showbiz section seems to contain little else.
andy1231
30-12-2016
Originally Posted by jjwales:
“It was going to be renamed Digger in a proposed remake of the film, but that still hasn't happened.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-13727908”

Bloody Stephen Fry !
jjwales
30-12-2016
Originally Posted by Mesostim:
“I was referring to the people who can;t abide the name of the dog being changed.. as evidence in this very thread ”

Sorry, I misunderstood.
jjwales
30-12-2016
Originally Posted by GusGus:
“Trevor MacDonald interviewed Morgan Freeman a few years back. During that interview he told Morgan that there was a n****r in the White House to which Morgan asked "What is he doing there"
If any non black person had made such a comment the "snowflakes" (love that description/name) would be screaming blue murder”

Well, some people would (rightly) have complained I guess. But "snowflakes" wouldn't be the right word for them.
stoatie
30-12-2016
So nobody censored the dog's name.

That's awesome.

Anyone pissed off about any of the other stuff they changed while making the actual movie? There's a fair bit listed here.

Does anyone care about that? No, not really. Because that's how films work, especially films adapted from books based on real life. And because it would be utterly insane to give a shit about details like that when telling a story which never claimed to be a documentary.

Why does anyone give so much of a shit about the name of a dog that belonged to one of the guys, when nobody's that bothered about any of the rest of the changes they made?

OP, are you happy or sad that you never got your moment?
D_Mcd4
30-12-2016
I think "snowflake" is forum word of the year this year. Someone is always ranting about them.
muggins14
30-12-2016
Originally Posted by D_Mcd4:
“I think "snowflake" is forum word of the year this year. Someone is always ranting about them. ”

Aren't they just! They are being utter snowflakes about the bloody snowflakes Who is worse? The snowflake or the snowflake moaning about them?
Jellied Eel
30-12-2016
Originally Posted by andy1231:
“Bloody Stephen Fry !”

I don't think the remake includes dropping him from a Lancaster. But a 21st Century re-imagining of the movie was sent to the script doctors. First draft included new 'Cockleshell Heroes' with environmentalists saving local cockles from Barnes Wallis. The producers also thought turning it into a trilogy to cover public enquiry, environmental impact assessment and judicial review would not go down well with most audiences.
Grafenwalder
30-12-2016
Originally Posted by jjwales:
“Well, some people would (rightly) have complained I guess. But "snowflakes" wouldn't be the right word for them.”

Obviously it's not describing snowflakes from snow so it depends which dictionary definition of the word you prefer. Both bear close similarities.

Urban dictionary.

Oxford English.
phylo_roadking
30-12-2016
Originally Posted by MC_Satan:
“Are you irked by the various innacuracies in the film?”


Aren't/weren't virtually all war films slightly or great inaccurate to some degree, compromised by everything from limited production values, to the need to preserve various "urban myths" regarding their heroes...and none more so "massaged" than Gibson in the film...to the need to cram long stories into90 or 120 minutes?

No, not irked because where the inaccuracies show, I know better. But can still appreciate the film all of a piece for what it is.
Brian The Dog
30-12-2016
That Mr Hitler got a really bad wrap in films as well. Should we not censor and redo films to call him Malcolm instead?

Paul237
31-12-2016
So someone's outraged at the lack of outrage? Must be a first.
MAW
31-12-2016
A part of the problem with the film is that it's become the 'truth'. Way more people have seen it than have read 'Enemy coast ahead' or the authorised 617 squadron book. Or heard it from a family member, though he wasn't old enough to be on the dams raid.
TerraCanis
31-12-2016
Originally Posted by stoatie:
“So nobody censored the dog's name.

That's awesome.

Anyone pissed off about any of the other stuff they changed while making the actual movie? There's a fair bit listed here.

Does anyone care about that? No, not really. Because that's how films work, especially films adapted from books based on real life. And because it would be utterly insane to give a shit about details like that when telling a story which never claimed to be a documentary.

Why does anyone give so much of a shit about the name of a dog that belonged to one of the guys, when nobody's that bothered about any of the rest of the changes they made?

OP, are you happy or sad that you never got your moment?”

I do sometimes wonder whether it's just because it give them the opportunity to say "******! Look, I just said ******! Tee hee hee hee!"

It's a while since I read the book, but my recollection is that the dog didn't get a huge mention in that,nexcept for a note in passing that the squadron personnel used to get him drunk on beer. And, of course, his death, which (again by my recollection) takes up a sentence or two, along the lines that "Gibson was told that his dog had been run over and killed by a driver who hadn't bothered to stop, and wondered whether it was some sort of omen". That was then expanded in the film, to foreshadow the losses that would be suffered during the raid and to convey to the audience a sense of comradeship.

As for what Gibson was wondering... who knows? He was long dead by the time the book was written, and ( as with many aspects of the operation that were still classified) Paul Brickhill would have "filled in the gaps". And I've seen a couple of alternative versions of how the dog met his fate. One states that, far from being a hit-and-run by an unknown driver, the dog was run over by a local doctor who swerved in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid him, crashing and sustaining injuries in the process. Another version has the dog being run over, within the confines of the station, by an RAF vehicle.

So, even considering only matters that directly involve the dog... there are plenty of "changes to history" already, plus a liberal dose of speculation.

(Needless to say, there is a conspiracy theory, according to which the Germans had learned of Operation Chastise and the dog was killed by a German agent to destroy the squadron's morale.)
TerraCanis
31-12-2016
Originally Posted by MAW:
“A part of the problem with the film is that it's become the 'truth'. Way more people have seen it than have read 'Enemy coast ahead' or the authorised 617 squadron book. Or heard it from a family member, though he wasn't old enough to be on the dams raid.”

When I was at school, every second kid had a father or an uncle who was involved in some way in the Dambusters raid. If this was the case at other schools too, RAF Scampton in 1943 must have had a population to rival that of London.
phylo_roadking
31-12-2016
Originally Posted by MAW:
“A part of the problem with the film is that it's become the 'truth'. Way more people have seen it than have read 'Enemy coast ahead' or the authorised 617 squadron book. Or heard it from a family member, though he wasn't old enough to be on the dams raid.”

And that's where it all dovetails into the public perception of events years, sometimes decades earlier that were heavily censored at the time. Nor did...do...the vast majority of viewers actually WANT total historical accuracy....as for the most part it's crushingly boring In 2-3 hours they wanted then...and still want..."packaged" history, and if that means major compromises and running fast and loose with the facts, so be it.

They may come away from the multiplex these days and head straight onto social media to complain about the historical inaccuracies of whatever period piece they've just seen - but the thing is, they've paid their money already to the studio-owned cinema chains And if its a rollicking good piece of entertainment...then it'll do well in DVD and view-on-demand sales. Often these days far better than initial cinema takings. It's all about money, and was even then too.
RobinOfLoxley
31-12-2016
There is a dichotomy between the technical brilliance of Barnes Wallis and his inventions and the human cost.

56 men died from the crews, that night, and many civilians in the flooding.

Lives just snapped out. Very sobering and would be big news today.

Happened every day of WWII.

Later Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs, also by Barnes Wallis, were totally necessary but also killed many. He must have been affected by his work.
Kat1966
31-12-2016
Originally Posted by Pitman:
“one of the cats in Hyde park cemetery

https://londoninsight.files.wordpres...0/1b2q9426.jpg

I must say though, 'Bogie' is a brilliant name for your pet ”

When I was small, we had a huge black cat, we got him just after the Rivers of Blood speech so my dad named him Enoch Powell. Our neighbours used to find it really funny my dad shouting Enoch about a black cat!
Gilbertoo
31-12-2016
Originally Posted by CLL Dodge:
“Begins with an N.”

Farage?
Union Jock
31-12-2016
Originally Posted by Peter the Great:
“I think you don't know what you are talking about. It is the Daily Mail that likes to get outraged because a bare arse was shown on the BBC at 21.05.”

That's the Mail's hatred of the BBC, nothing else.
jjwales
31-12-2016
Originally Posted by Grafenwalder:
“Obviously it's not describing snowflakes from snow so it depends which dictionary definition of the word you prefer. Both bear close similarities.

Urban dictionary.

Oxford English.”

Neither seems to fit the bill here.
annette kurten
31-12-2016
changing historical fact to fit current beliefs is a bizarre and pointless thing to do.
MAW
31-12-2016
Originally Posted by phylo_roadking:
“And that's where it all dovetails into the public perception of events years, sometimes decades earlier that were heavily censored at the time. Nor did...do...the vast majority of viewers actually WANT total historical accuracy....as for the most part it's crushingly boring In 2-3 hours they wanted then...and still want..."packaged" history, and if that means major compromises and running fast and loose with the facts, so be it.

They may come away from the multiplex these days and head straight onto social media to complain about the historical inaccuracies of whatever period piece they've just seen - but the thing is, they've paid their money already to the studio-owned cinema chains And if its a rollicking good piece of entertainment...then it'll do well in DVD and view-on-demand sales. Often these days far better than initial cinema takings. It's all about money, and was even then too.”

I've slept through Pearl Harbour three times, so my perception of that is untainted by Hollywood.
skazza
31-12-2016
Originally Posted by GusGus:
“Trevor MacDonald interviewed Morgan Freeman a few years back. During that interview he told Morgan that there was a n****r in the White House to which Morgan asked "What is he doing there"
If any non black person had made such a comment the "snowflakes" (love that description/name) would be screaming blue murder”

He says "black man," for starters, and the context is the historical segregation of blacks and whites in Mississippi. I think a 'non black person' would have got away with the same line of questioning.

https://youtu.be/7WV77jPFshU?t=278
<<
<
4 of 6
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map