Guy Gibsons Dog Renamed for Film

[forthbridge]

More to the point - what about the music? Who can say they *don't* like Eric Coates' Classic 'Busters march?
Will the new version feel the same without it?

[Garry Russell]

The Dambuster March will always be associated with the old film rather than any retelling of the story

For example the Battle of Brtian theme and 633 sqn remain asssociated with just those films and no other films of similar events

I really don't think the musuc comes into it as such

Garry

[DaveG]

Its the CGI Lancasters whizzing round the flak towers like X-wing fighters thats really going to piss me off.

If you haven't seen it, this is worth a watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NMfBKrdErY :000:

[Garry Russell]

Not forgetting the story how the Germans may see it :roll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVSBtivbUs4

Garry

[Quixoticish]

Anyone see a report on UK TV this evening about PC gone mad?? Esther Rantzen (ChildLine champion for many years) did an experiment in a shopping centre with 2 young actors (knee high to a grasshopper type age). They were told to look lost and distressed in an attempt to see how many 'good citizens' stopped to offer assistance. For those who missed it, you'd probably not be surprised at how many hundreds (eventually over the thousand mark) who passed these kids by :roll:

ATB

DaveB :tab:

And stopping to help a child in the street (or not, as the case may be) has what to do with "PC gone mad"? Absolutely nothing, it's to do with fear of litigation or just generally bad attitudes.

"PC gone mad" is a very trendy term to sling around these days, and as you've just demonstrated it's used in cases where it is nothing to do with "political correctness". That's not to say the whole Guy Gibson's dogs name debate isn't... that is of course a matter of political correctness.

And dragging things back on topic, I'm quite pleased that this film has prompted such debate, because it's a debate society really needs to have with regards to revisionist history for the sake of political correctness. Like it or loathe it there are huge swathes of society that find "nigger" incredibly offensive, and justifiably so. That doesn't say we should be removing it from historical documentation such as this, but by leaping about screaming about "PC gone mad" (not you Dave, I'm talking generally now) you're sidestepping the debate and entrenching yourself firmly in the hype and not helping anyone because you aren't exactly being empirical about the situation.

My own personal opinions:

Is the word "nigger" offensive to a large amount of people, quite rightly so? Yes

Does this mean we should remove it when it is used in a historical context? No

Is this film a major Hollywood production, less concerned with performing a sociological function and more concerned with making money? Yes

Did anyone actually expect them to say "nigger" in the film anyway, and is anyone really shocked? No

Is it a good thing that we're debating this now, so in the future this situation may not arise again? Yes

And most importantly.... if the film is a two and a half hour monumental epic that sucks you into the action for the full duration, builds up tension with an excellent narrative, is well cast and showcases some incredible CGI, features a stunning soundtrack and does tribute to all who served in the conflict.... Are you really going to leave the cinema complaining about the fact that they didn't say "nigger"?

And to be honest the only thing even remotely offensive about the whole situation is a few of the snide remarks about the Germans being made with regards to this film. I had hoped that as a society we were well and truly past this "us and them" mentality and we could recognise the human cost on both sides of the conflict. It appears I was mistaken.

[DaveB]

Funny you mention the old BoB theme Garry. Years ago, one particular ship I was on took part in 'Kiel Week' (that be the one in Germany not the other one) and on leaving, we were played out by a German Air force Band. The music they played reminded me straight away of the 'lead in' piece from the film with the Ju52 (I think it's called the Battle of Britain March).. same sort of style and tempo. Gave me goosebumps I have to say. What excellent military bands the Germans have and how clever it was to have such an authentic sounding piece of music in the film (even though this was probably missed by 99% of the viewing audience)

Oops.. tangent time!

EDIT..
Yeh.. thanks for that Chris. I'm only quoting what was said in the programme :roll:

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[Paul K]

As for the CGI Lancasters buzzing around towers ala Star Wars, well the original movie was ironically a huge influence on George Lucas in the making of Star Wars. Unless some one is going to stump up the money to rebuild numerous Lanc's to flying status (and I for one would love that to be the case but I am also a realist) then its going to have to be CGI, CG is like a lot of things, if its done properly it looks good, done badly....well.....and lets face facts, it is Computer Generation of Flying that brings us all together here!

Would be lovely if the film funded the visit of the CWH Lanc and the airworthy restoration of Just Jane, wouldn't it.

Yes, I was only half serious about CGI Lancasters , but I'm thinking of films like Pearl Harbour ( which I watched because all the paint had dried in my hotel room ) and more recently Letters from Iwo Jima ( which I gave up on about half way through ). In the latter, Corsairs were strafing the island at transonic speeds and sounding like Cessnas on acid. I wonder if there is a problem in accurately replicating an aircraft's flight characteristics when they do the filming. :think:

Still, its not an important thing in life and its those that we must focus on.

[emfrat]

Despite the danger of giving this proposed remake even more free publicity, can I just express my opinion by making a few points?
1 - This proposal has nothing to do with paying tribute to the courage of the RAF people who took part in the raid. It is all about reassuring Peter Jackson that his is bigger than anyone else's.
2 - PJ is the same person/fella/arrogant b****** who made a travesty of Tolkien's LotR, for the reasons outlined above. As a result, we now have a whole generation of children who say the book is wrong because it doesn't match the movie. I don't think we should let that happen again.
3 - There is a world of difference between being genuinely offended by, and rightly seeking compensation for, the hurt caused by a deliberate insult, and simply realising that a situation has arisen which allows you to claim to have been offended, and after coaching by a lawyer as to the best way to express that claim, to receive a substantial out-of-court settlement of which 10 or 15 % goes into the lawyer's pocket.
If the movie ever gets off the ground, I won't be watching it.
'Nuff said.
MikeW

[SkippyBing]

2 - PJ is the same person/fella/arrogant b****** who made a travesty of Tolkien's LotR, for the reasons outlined above. As a result, we now have a whole generation of children who say the book is wrong because it doesn't match the movie. I don't think we should let that happen again.

There is generally a good reason films are changed from the books they represent/are based on. The narrative format in motion pictures is obviously far more visually orientated than books, I managed the first ten pages of 'The Hobbit' and if the LotR trilogy is as densely packed as that it would be impossible to make a film that matches the book perfectly and be watchable. The only film I can think of that is 100% accurate to the book is the first Harry Potter marketing cash in, because J R Tolkein, sorry J K Rowling, insisted on it. As someone who hadn't read the book I was dragged along by some friends and was frankly bored to death by the first half which appeared to consist of people sitting in cupboards a lot, which doesn't make for an arresting film experience. Notably the same level of slavish adherence to the source material hasn't been insisted on in the sequels.

It costs millions of dollars/pounds/rupees to make a movie, which is a significant investment, if you want to put up the money you can insist on a mind numbingly accurate retelling of the experience. Just don't expect to get your money back.

Still it's nice to see an open minded approach to this, that waits for the film to be made before condemning it, otherwise you'd be at the same level as say issuing a fatwah against Salman Rushdie for writing a book you haven't read.

Paul, I haven't got around to watching Letters from Iwo Jima yet, however it depends on what the director is trying to convey. In Black Hawk Down they took a lot of time getting the CGI aircraft to move like the real thing because it was important to the context of the story. However from the scenes I have seen of Letters from IJ it seems to be portraying the battle from the ground troops point of view so the director may be trying to make the Corsairs seem more powerful than they really were.

[markw]

I personally find the idea of making another film of the story more offensive than renaming the dog. I can't think of a single "remake" that Shabbywood has made of any classic TV show or movie that has been anything other than a complete cock-up. Whether it was Mission Impossible and the ridiculous French TGV without any seeming means of propulsion as it lacked overhead wires, being chased by a Bell Jetranger down the Channel Tunnel without being entangled in the invisible 25,000v overhead line (or having the rotors ripped off by the tunnel entrance), or the Avengers which was just a load of boring tom-tit starring two leads with the charisma of an Ikea sofa, just for two examples, or of course the completely outrageous idea that the US captured and cracked the Enigma machine in that U-Boat movie, in my view pretty much everything that Hollywood tries to remake turns to cack. Even if Stephen Fry is script writer (although I expect it's more likely to end up script consultant and a lot of staff writers will make the final script) I really wonder what is the point. It may be quaint to modern eyes with some slightly iffy models and effects but the original 1951 movie is still on the mark. There must be more stories that remain untold out there. Band of Brothers, the TV series, was wonderful and hadn't been told before, so it can be done.

To my mind Hollywood seem to have lost the plot - literally - and are lacking any new creative ideas when they are constantly churning out remakes, sequels (Rocky, the Zimmerframe years?) and "modern updates" of classic stories under new titles. I suspect too many money men are in charge and not enough old-fashioned showbiz impresarios who would often take a risk on new ideas and let creative people have there way.

Of course I might be proven wrong and it may well be a stonking film but the past track record and evidence isn't good and I feel justified in being cautious.