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

Strange, given their website's showbiz section seems to contain little else.

Bloody Stephen Fry !

Sorry, I misunderstood.

Well, some people would (rightly) have complained I guess. But "snowflakes" wouldn't be the right word for them.

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

That Mr Hitler got a really bad wrap in films as well. Should we not censor and redo films to call him Malcolm instead?

So someone's outraged at the lack of outrage? Must be a first.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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!

Farage?

That's the Mail's hatred of the BBC, nothing else.

Neither seems to fit the bill here.

changing historical fact to fit current beliefs is a bizarre and pointless thing to do.

I've slept through Pearl Harbour three times, so my perception of that is untainted by Hollywood.

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