Hollywood in Dambusters Remake!
Sorry to disagree, but if there was no reference to the dog, how would you explain the success codeword for the breach of the first dam? 'Nigger' is an integral part of the story, IMHO.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
I understand that in the remake, 'Chuck' Gibson's B-29 clips the conning tower of U-571 on the Mohne See during the run-in and is hence able to recover the Enigma cipher tool.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: shrewsbury
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Orac I disagree. The dog is an important part of the Dambusters story. That is why his grave is still tended at Scampton.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: W. Sussex
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only anti-semitic, but anti-English... The Patriot- the English portrayed as evil bar stewards, and eventually the commanding officer is skewered on the Stars and Stripes (at which point the veins were sticking out rather prominently of my forehead). Braveheart- need I say more. That's irony for you.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Age: 84
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't see this thread before posting a new one "Dambusters MK2", but according to the news in Wellington, and it's on the front page this morning, Hollywood isn't mentioned, and Mel won't be in it! It looks very much as though Hollywood, and American, involvement will be minimal, and besides, Peter Jackson is a stickler for accuracy. Most, if not all of the previous posts are therefore irrelevent!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3782818a10,00.html
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3782818a10,00.html
Last edited by Samuel; 31st Aug 2006 at 19:27.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Delta Quadrant
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least this one actually has a genuine US hero - McCarthy - as well as assorted Kiwis, Canadians and Aussies.
As for the dog. The name is racist now and it was racist in 1943, even if the use of it by Gibson and his contemporaries was unconcious racism. You don't need the name in the film, even as the codeword.
As for the dog. The name is racist now and it was racist in 1943, even if the use of it by Gibson and his contemporaries was unconcious racism. You don't need the name in the film, even as the codeword.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally think the new Dambusters film is in good hands with Peter Jackson. He is a pilot and I think owns some vintage aircraft.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0405/S00185.htm
Aviate 1138
Suspicion breeds confidence
2OLD,
We can't go around deleting pieces of historical fact just because it doesn't fit in our Nanny State PC world. It was in the original, I see no reason to leave it out of this one, though I suspect they will.
We can't go around deleting pieces of historical fact just because it doesn't fit in our Nanny State PC world. It was in the original, I see no reason to leave it out of this one, though I suspect they will.
Untitled
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Transatlantic
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heh, I knew it wouldn't be long before the dog controversy started up.
Personally I agree with ORAC. 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. There's plenty of other things concentrate on and having a dog called "Off-white" or something would just p!ss everyone off, insult history and divert attention from the story of the crews. Sorry state of affairs, but there you go. It's going to occupy a lot of column inches whatever.
Good CGI above - however the biggest issue I have with CGI creations in aviation films is generally not their appearance but the physics of flight, which is generally shocking.
Still, Jackson, a self confessed Anglophile and military aviation nut is probably the best man to hold the reigns so fingers crossed. That Kiwi article above says they're building ten full-size Lanc mockups for the ground shots. That'd be quite the sight!
Personally I agree with ORAC. 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. There's plenty of other things concentrate on and having a dog called "Off-white" or something would just p!ss everyone off, insult history and divert attention from the story of the crews. Sorry state of affairs, but there you go. It's going to occupy a lot of column inches whatever.
Good CGI above - however the biggest issue I have with CGI creations in aviation films is generally not their appearance but the physics of flight, which is generally shocking.
Still, Jackson, a self confessed Anglophile and military aviation nut is probably the best man to hold the reigns so fingers crossed. That Kiwi article above says they're building ten full-size Lanc mockups for the ground shots. That'd be quite the sight!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 51.33.22.33N 0.47.24.06E ish
Age: 56
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Jackson has a good track record, he is a aeroplane enthusiast to the core, CGI and the use of it has improved since "Pearl Harbour", thank God. The chance to show a story of what happens when tyranny meets sheer bloody mindedness, brilliant minds, and brave & heroic defenders of their way of life can't be brushed aside.
While I think the original has all of the above, the modern audience hasn't got the capacity to fill in the gaps in the picture on the wall in front of them. If the remake is true to the story with the bravery and spirit of all concerned, of all nations (there’s the multi-national ‘hook’) and shows and makes audible the never to be seen or heard again sight and sound of a squadron of Lancasters, in Surround Sound…well, I’ll watch it. Hopefully, so will enough people to re-coup the cost. Let’s face it, Mr Jackson only has to get the studio’s money back, he’s in the position to make films because he wants to, not because he has to.
“We’re having trouble getting hold of a Wellington bomber for the trial of your bomb, Wallis”
"Do you think it will help if you told them I designed it?”
While I think the original has all of the above, the modern audience hasn't got the capacity to fill in the gaps in the picture on the wall in front of them. If the remake is true to the story with the bravery and spirit of all concerned, of all nations (there’s the multi-national ‘hook’) and shows and makes audible the never to be seen or heard again sight and sound of a squadron of Lancasters, in Surround Sound…well, I’ll watch it. Hopefully, so will enough people to re-coup the cost. Let’s face it, Mr Jackson only has to get the studio’s money back, he’s in the position to make films because he wants to, not because he has to.
“We’re having trouble getting hold of a Wellington bomber for the trial of your bomb, Wallis”
"Do you think it will help if you told them I designed it?”
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least in the original film the aircraft were Lancasters flown by RAF crews; the Technical Advisor was Sqn Ldr HB (Micky) Martin DSO DFC & Bar and the Actor who played Wg Cdr Gibson was (in WW2) Lt R Todd MC (7th Battalion Parachute Regt) who, on D Day, was the first to arrive with his platoon at Pegasus Bridge in support of the Glider borne Troops of the Ox & Bucks Light Infantry.
Now, where do you find a team who would have one tenth of one percent of the actual WW2 knowledge of that team?
Now, where do you find a team who would have one tenth of one percent of the actual WW2 knowledge of that team?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Now, where do you find a team who would have one tenth of one percent of the actual WW2 knowledge of that team?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
At least in the original film the aircraft were Lancasters flown by RAF crews; the Technical Advisor was Sqn Ldr HB (Micky) Martin DSO DFC & Bar and the Actor who played Wg Cdr Gibson was (in WW2) Lt R Todd MC (7th Battalion Parachute Regt) who, on D Day, was the first to arrive with his platoon at Pegasus Bridge in support of the Glider borne Troops of the Ox & Bucks Light Infantry.
Now, where do you find a team who would have one tenth of one percent of the actual WW2 knowledge of that team?
Now, where do you find a team who would have one tenth of one percent of the actual WW2 knowledge of that team?
From Scapegoat 2004>> Having recently inherited a ltd edition print I would welcome some info into it's origin and history. It's entitled 'Tribute to 617 Squadron Past and Present' by John Pettitt from 1986. It's signed by the artist and and is number 77 of 500. It is signed by 8 former 617 Sqn aircrew: AM Sir Harold Martin, Gp Capt G L Cheshire, Gp Capt J B Tait, Wg Cdr P J J Day, Sqn Ldrs G E Fawke, T C Iveson & D J Shannon and Flt Lt R S D Kearns. Grateful for any info.
Scapegoat
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The GREAT North West
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Delta Quadrant
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NavalEye
The word doesn't need to be airbrushed out of history - quite the reverse, because it is an example of how Gibson was a product of his age, class and upbringing.
But it does not need to be included in a modern film of the operation, because a repugnant controversy would distract a modern audience from the key elements of the film - the dedication and sacrifice of the crews.
And if you want to complain about the airbrushing of history, what about Mrs Gibson? It wouldn't surprise me if PJ included a girlie interest, but it will probably be Gibson's duty WAAF, not his troubled marriage.
So, when it comes down to it, what's the key moment; the sight of the Mohne Dam collapsing, with a third of the squadron down and more to go? Or the historically correct codeword being received at base?
Or Gibson going off to write the letters?
The word doesn't need to be airbrushed out of history - quite the reverse, because it is an example of how Gibson was a product of his age, class and upbringing.
But it does not need to be included in a modern film of the operation, because a repugnant controversy would distract a modern audience from the key elements of the film - the dedication and sacrifice of the crews.
And if you want to complain about the airbrushing of history, what about Mrs Gibson? It wouldn't surprise me if PJ included a girlie interest, but it will probably be Gibson's duty WAAF, not his troubled marriage.
So, when it comes down to it, what's the key moment; the sight of the Mohne Dam collapsing, with a third of the squadron down and more to go? Or the historically correct codeword being received at base?
Or Gibson going off to write the letters?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Age: 84
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Let’s face it, Mr Jackson only has to get the studio’s money back, he’s in the position to make films because he wants to, not because he has to"
Scoggy, as far as I can tell, there is no "studio" money involved as PJ is more than capable of funding the whole thing himself from his small change......
The quote in my morning paper here in Wellington mentions a mere $76 million!
Scoggy, as far as I can tell, there is no "studio" money involved as PJ is more than capable of funding the whole thing himself from his small change......
The quote in my morning paper here in Wellington mentions a mere $76 million!