It’s very easy to discount the idea of changing the name with the usual “thats PC gone mad!” reaction but if the name is a problem to some then it deserves reasoned debate, not the ridiculous unproportioned reaction that we have seen here and elsewhere.

Sadly Samuel L Jackson doesn’t represent every person (whatever their ethnic origin) who may have issues with the term in the same way that the usage of the word in Rap music doesnt justify the use of the word.

The film-makers have a difficult job ensuring that historical accuracy is maintained and also they realise, unlike some people on here, that not everyone has the depth of knowledge to understand the context of the time and the use of the word then. If it is used then a short text explanation could be used but I doubt any filmmaker would wish to proceed their film with some text about the name of a Dog when the film is about the sacrifice of the brave crews of 617.

If it were me? I would omit the name but not substitute it and then at the end have a short bit of text explaining this and any other changes to history that will be needed in the course of translating the story into a film. A bonus to this would mean that when the film does come out it gets the attention it deserves for the right reasons.

steve

I will say this until I am black in the face 😀

Call the dog “Boy” – just imagine the explosion of horror when Gibson is wandering looking for “N!gger” calling out “Boy”. :diablo:

In fact why not call the movie “Dambusters – The Black and White Minstrel Show”. I can see Bomber Harris as Mr Interlocutor. Barnes Wallis in blackface doing a tap dance and a rousing chorus of “Way Down Upon the Moehne Dam”. 😀

I could go on but I won’t.

no, perhaps best you don’t…

Hornchurch et al.
I’m reliably informed by the mass media that Peter Jackson is cinematic genius. Why therfore does he seem to concentrating on remakes?

I wouldn’t claim to be an artistic genius because I completed a painting by numbers kit of The Mona Lisa.

After all, Steven Spielberg seems to be able to come up with fresh ideas fairly often.

Andy

Will the film actually be a remake though, i would suggest that with it been another version of a story about an actually event, as opposed to another version of an original film (ie king kong) then it is simply a retelling of a story. Afterall if two directors make a version of version of Hamlet, then it isnt a remake of Hamlet but a different interpretatuion, much in the same way that James Cameron wasn’t excused of remaking ‘A Night to Remember’. I sincerely doubt that these guys will go for a shot for shot ‘remake’ such as in the Pyscho remake in the 1990s.

kind regards, Steve

The debate will continue to rage about what the dog will be called but ultimately if a film with this type of backing can get in enough cinemas, then it might just ensure that sacrifice of the men and women of Bomber Command will be remembered by a considerable number of extra people. Not only will this film do that, but all the extra interest it will generate will no doubt encourage numerous tie-in publications and films which will get even more people interested. I’m personally grateful that these guys are taking an interest and whilst there is a chance that the film will not live up to expectations (and I do have my doubts about the use of CGI), it will stimulate more interest.

If they change the name of the dog, it is a shame as authenticity would be preferable,but I can sympathise with their predicament and ultimately the greater benefits that this film may bring far will outweigh the issue of the name Gibsons dog and also its subsequent usage as one of the codewords used by 617sq on the dams raid. It is, in my opinion, typical that the many positive aspects of a Bomber Command film (albeit the retelling of this raid) have been ignored and that the name of the dog/codeword has become more important.

kind regards, Steve